(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Bulletin of zoological nomenclature"

^^ ano-^ 



THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 



The Official Organ of 

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



VOLUME 31 



LONDON: 

Printed by Order of the International Trust for 

Zoological Nomenclature 

and 

Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological 

Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publication Office, 

c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, 

London SW7 5BD 

1974 

(All rights reserved) 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



ui 



Page 



Opinion 1014. Okenia Menke, 1830 (MoIIusca, Opisthobranchia): 

placed on the Official List of Generic Names 13 

Opinion 1015. Solenius Lepeletier & BruUe, 1834 (Insecta, Hymenop- 

tera): designation of a type-species under the plenary powers ... 16 

Opinion 1016. Cribrilina punctata (Hassall, 1841): designation of a 

neotype under the plenary powers 19 

Opinion 1017. Trychosis Foerster, 1868 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): 

designation of a type-species under the plenary powers ... ... 22 

Opinion 1018. Polanisa Walker, 1875 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): sup- 
pressed under the plenary powers 24 

Hypacantus Rafinesque, 1810 (Pisces, carangidae): request for sup- 
pression under the plenary powers. By E. Tortonese (Museo 
civico di Storia Naturale, Genova, Italy) ... 27 

Resubmission of Pan Oken, 1816 and Panthera Oken, 1816 (Mammalia), 
proposed conservation under the plenary powers. By G. B. Corbet, 
J. E. Hill, J. M. Ingles and P. H. Napier (British Museum {Natural 
History), Cromwell Road, London S.W.I) 29 

Application for the suppression of Delphinus pernettensis de Blainville, 
1817 and Delphinus pernetiyi Demarest, 1820. By P. J. H. van Bree 
(Instituut voor Taxonomische Zoologie, Universiteit van Amsterdam, 
The Netherlands) 44 

Sesarma trapezium Dana, 1852 (Crustacea: Decapoda): proposed 
suppression under the plenary powers. By Lawrence G. Abele 
{Rosentiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Universitv 
of Miami, Miami, Florida 33\49, USA) '. 49 

Loligo stearnsii Hemphill, 1812 (MoUusca, Cephalopoda): request for 
suppression under the plenary powers. By Gilbert L. Voss (Rosen- 
tiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Universitv of Miami, 
Miai7v, Florida 33\49, USA) ' '. 51 

Cyclogyra Wood, 1842 (Foraminiferida): proposal for suppression under 
the plenary powers. By Richard W. Ponder (Geology Department, 
James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, Queensland, 
Australia) 54 



IV 



Page 



PLATVSTOMATiDAt Scliincr, 1862: proposed conservation as a family- 
group name over achiidae Fleming, 1821 (Insecta, Diptera). By 
George C. Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricul- 
tural Research Service, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 
20560, USA) and David K. McAlpine (The Australian Museum, 6-8 
College Street, Sydney 2000, New South Wales, Australia) 59 

Phagocata cornuta Shishkov, 1903 (Platyhelminthes: Turbellaria) request 
for suppression under the plenary powers. By R. Kenk (Depart- 
ment of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, 
Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 20560} 62 

Report of the Special Session held at Ustaoset, Norway, September, 1973 66 

Appendix A: The status of the International Commission on Zoo- 
logical Nomenclature ... 

Appendice A: Le statul de la Commission Internationale de Nomen- 
clature Zoologique 70 

International Union of Biological Sciences, Division of Zoology: Annex 

/i.l. Statutes of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature 74 

International Union of Biological Sciences, Division oj Zoology: Annex 

/4 .2. Revised Statutes of the Division of Zoology 75 

Amendments to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 
adopted since the XVI International Congress of Zoology, 
Washington, 1963 79 

Amendements au Code International de Nomenclature Zoologique 
adoptes depuis le XVI Congres International de Zoologie, 
Washington, 1963 78 

The Constitution of the International Commission on Zoological 

Nomenclature 91 

La Constitution de la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature 

Zoologique 90 

Opinion 1019. Byrsocrypta Haliday, 1838 (Insecta, Hemiptera, 

aphididae) : suppressed under the plenary powers 117 



V 

Page 

Opinion 1020. Pleuroaccintluies Canavari, 1883 (Cephalopoda, 
Lytoceratina): designation of a type-species under the plenary 
powers 121 

Opinion 1021. Cliints aculeaiiis Reinhardl, 1837 (Pisces, Blennioidei) : 

suppressed under the plenary powers ... ... ... ... ... 123 

Opinion 1022. Ctcnodoiua elongata Salter, 1873 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): 

suppressed under the plenary powers 125 

Opinion 1023. cassidae (Mollusca) and cassidinae (Insecta): placed 

on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology 127 

Opinion 1024. Epirhexis Cope, 1866 (Amphibia; Salientia): sup- 
pressed under the plenary powers 130 

Opinion 1025. Salamandra tigrina Green, 1825 (Amphibia): grant 
of priority under the plenary powers over Gvn'inis inexicanus Shaw, 
1789 133 

Request for the suppression of Didermocerus Brookes, 1 828 (Mammalia) 
By Patrick J. Boylan {Leicestershire Museums, Art Galleries & 
Records Service, U.K.) and Margaret Green (Scientific Assistant, 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ... ... 135 

Cicada cingulata (Fabricius) var. obscura Hudson, 1891 (Insecta, Order 
Hemiptera, Suborder Homoptera): proposed suppression as a 
nomen ohiitum. By C. A. Fleming and J. S. Dugdale (A'eir Zealand 
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Lower Hutt, New 
Zealand) ... 140 

Hyinenosoma laeve Targioni Tozzetti, 1877 (Crustacea, Brachyura): pro- 
posed suppression under the plenary powers. By J. S. Lucas (James 
Cook University of North Queensland, Towusville, 4810 Australia ... 142 

Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837: proposed suppression under the plenary 
powers so as to conserve Leptinotarsa Stal, 1854 (Coleoptera, 
CHRYSOMELiDAE). By Richard E. White (Systematic Entomology 
Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, c/o U.S. National 
Museum, Washington D.C. 20560) and Richard L. Jacques, Jr. 
(Department of Biological Sciences, Fairleigh Dickenson University, 
Rutherford, New Jersey, U.S.A.) 144 



yi 



Page 



Dactylopius Costa, 1835 and Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, 
Homoptera): proposed designation of a type-species under the 
plenary powers with proposed suppression of Diaprosteci Costa, 
1828. By Douglass R. Miller (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, 
Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agricul- 
ture, Beltsville, Md 20705, USA) 146 

Coccus sativus Lancry, 1 79 1, Coccus mexicanus Lamarck, 1801 and 
Coccus silvestris Lancry, 1791 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed sup- 
pression under the plenary powers. By Giovanni De Lotto (Plant 
Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, South Africa) 154 

Request for a ruling on the authorship of Conus moluccensis (Mollusca, 
Gastropoda). By Walter O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and 
Museum, Private Bag, Auckland \, New Zealand) ... ... ... 156 

Sphe.x viatica Linnaeus: a problem of types and revisers (Hymenoptera, 
SPHECiDAE, or pompilidae). By Curtis W. Sabrosky (Systematic 
Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, c/o U.S. 
National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560) ... ... ... ... 159 

Plea for the conservation of Aphis pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841 and 
the suppression of Aphis pyri Vallot, 1802, Aphis pyri Kittel, 1827 
and seven other binominals proposed by Kittel in 1827. By V. F. 
Eastop (British Museum (Natural History), London S. 1^.7) 164 

Direction 106. Correction of the entry in Opinion 972, referring to the 
author of the specific name saportae which was placed on the 
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology, with the 
Name Number 969 179 

Opinion 1026. Chrysopa hungarica Klapalek, 1899 (Insecta, Neurop- 

tera): neotype invalidated 182 

Opinion 1027. Sminthurinus Borner, I90I (Insecta, Collembola): 

designation of a type-species under the plenary powers 1 84 

Opinion 1028. Falco exilis Temminck, 1830 (Aves): suppressed under 

the plenary powers 1 86 

Opinion 1029. Rana boans Linnaeus, 1758 (Amphibia): placed on the 

Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 188 

Opinion 1030. Cylindrella Swainson, 1840 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): 

suppressed under the plenary powers ... ... ... ... ... 190 



VII 

Page 

Opinion 1031. Eostomias exiinius Jordan & Gilbert, 1925 (Pisces): 

placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 192 

Opinion 1032. Heniola Uvarov, 1940 (Insecta, Orthoptera): designa- 
tion of a type-species under the plenary powers 194 

Revised proposals on the validation of Aglaja Renier, 1807, Aglaja 
depicta Renier, 1807 and A. tricolorata Renier, 1807 (Mollusca, 
Opisthobranchia); neotype selection for A. tricolorata. By H. 
Lemche (Universitetets zoologiske Museum, Universitetsparken 15, 
2100 Kobenhavn 0, Danmark) 196 

Proposed amendment to Opinion 908: correction of the type-species of 
Lilioceris Reitter, 1912. By R. E. White (Systematic Entomology 
Laboratory, U.S.D.A., cjo U.S. National Museum, Washington 
£).C. 20560) 200 

Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878 (Amphibia): holotype rediscovered. 

By C. Gans {The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.A.) ... 201 

Parnalius Rafinesque, 1815 (Insecta Rhopalocera) : request for suppres- 
sion. By N. D. Riley and L. G. Higgins (c/o British Museum 
(Natural History), London S.W.I) 204 

Article 50 and questions of authorship. By C. W. Sabrosky (Systematic 
Entomology Laboratory, U.S.D.A., cjo U.S. National Museum, 
Washington D.C. 20560) 206 

LEPTOSOMATIDAE in Aves and Nematoda: request to place leptosomidae 
Blyth, 1838 and leptosomatidae Fihpjev, 1916 on the Official List 
of Family-Group Names in Zoology. By A. M. Sudilovskaia 
Zoological Museum of Moscow State University, USSR) and G. N. 
Kashin (A/0.5C0H') 209 

Amendments to an application on NASSARiiDAElredale, 1916(Gastropoda) 
proposed conservation under the plenary powers. By W. O. 
Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New 
Zealand) 212 

ALCiDAE (ex alcadae) Anon., 1820 (Aves) and alceidae (ex alcedae) 
Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia): request for addition to the Official List 
of Family-Group Names in Zoology. By G. N. Kashin (Moscow) 215 



VIII 



Page 



Calomicrus taeiiiatus Wollaston, 1867 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed 
suppression under the plenary powers. By H. Silfverberg {Zoo- 
logical Museum of the University, Hehingfors, Finland) 216 

Proposed suppression of Xiphidium glabenimuin Burmeister, 1838 and 
Orchelimum cuticulare Audinet-Serville, 1838 and proposed addition 
of Orchelimum vulgare Harris, 1841 to the Official List (Insecta, 
Grylloptera). By V. R. Vicl<ery {Lyman Entomological Museum 
and Research Laboratory, Macdonald Campus, McGill University, 
Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Province of Quebec, Canada, H9X3MI) ... 218 

Request for the suppression of Signiphora giraulti Crawford, 1913 
(Insecta, Hymenoptera) as type-species of Kerrichiella Rosanov, 
1965. By B. R. Subba Rao {Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, 
London) 221 

Echis coloratus Giinther, 1878 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed validation 
under the plenary powers. By A. F. Stimson {British Museum 
{Natural History), London S.WJ) 223 

Application for a ruling on the availability of five specific names proposed 
as new for the genus Heterodera A. Schmidt, 1871 (Nematoda) in 
"A preliminary key to British species of Heterodera for use in soil 
examination" by B. A. Cooper, 1955. By A. R. Stone {Rothamsted 
Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts., England) 225 

Thrips nifa Gmelin, 1790 (Insecta, Thysanoptera, thripidae) : proposed 
suppression under the plenary powers so as to validate T. rufa 
Haliday, 1836. By L. A. Mound & J. M. Palmer {British Museum 
{Natural History), London S.W.I) 228 

Proposed conservation under the plenary powers of the name Xyleborus 
Eichhoff, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCOLytidae) By S. L. Wood 
{Department of Zoology, Brighaiti Young University, Prove, Utah) 230 

Proposed conservation under the plenary powers of the name Dryocoetes 
Eichhoff, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera, scolytidae). By S. L. Wood 
(Address as above) 232 

Proposed conservation under the plenary powers of the name Liparthrum 
Wollaston, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera, scolytidae). By S. L. Wood 
(Address as in the A'i7^6on« paper above) 234 



IX 

Page 

Proposed conservation under the plenary powers of the name Phloeosinus 
Chapuis, 1869 (Insecta, Coleoptera, scolytidae). By S. L. Wood 
(Address as in the A'i7e6oM<j; paper above) 236 

Clinocardiwn californiense (Deshayes, 1839) (Moilusca, cardiidae): 
proposed validation under the plenary powers. By A. I. Kafanov 
{Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, USSR) ... 238 

Plrctoloplitis ducrops Bonaparte, 1850 (Aves): proposed suppression 
under the plenary powers and validation of Cacatua diicorpsii 
Pucheran, 1853. By E. Eisenmann {American Museum of Natural 
History, New York, N. Y.) and J. M. Forshaw {CSIRO, Division of 
Wildlife Research, Canberra, Australia) 240 

Megasternwn Mulsant, 1844 and Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera, hydrophilidae): two cases of misidentified type-species. 
By A. Smetana {Biosystematics Research Institute, Canada Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada) 244 

Pseudoboa nigra (Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1854) (Reptilia: 
Serpentes): proposed validation under the plenary powers. By 
A. F. Stimson {British Museum {Natural History), London S.W.I) lAl 

Platyrhacus Koch, 1847 (Diplopoda): petition for the designation by the 
International Commission of a type-species in harmony with 
accustomed usage. By R. L. Hoffman {Radford College, Radford, 
Virginia 24\4\) ' ... 249 

Index to Authors 252 

List of Decisions in this Volume 254 

Index to Key Names 255 

Names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Decisions published in 

volume 31 261 

Corrigenda 263 

Particulars of dates of publication of the several parts in which the present 

volume was published 264 

Instructions to Binder 265 



pp. 1-64 



Volume 31, Part 1 j . -^ t, AUG \qja \ 31st July 1974 



,1 --t' AUG 1974 

\\'t,''"ft.:nyi,i,, _^ 



v. 'i« 



u^'\. 



THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 



The OfiBcial Organ of 

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

Contents 

Announcement of Vacancy . . . . . . 1 

Obituary : Professor Doctor Tadeusz Jaczewski . . . . . . 4 

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: 

Date of commencement by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in 
the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1 

Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases . . 1 

{continued inside back wrapper) 

LONDON: 

Printed by Order of the International Trust for 

Zoological Nomenclature 

and 

Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological 

Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 

c/o British Museum (Natural History) 

Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD 

1974 

Price Three Pounds 
(All rights reserved) 



INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 

A. The Officers of the Commission 

President: Dr. W. D. L. Ride (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 

August 1963) 
Vice-President: Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The 

Netherlands) (28 August 1963) 
Secretary: Mr. R. V. Melville (Institute of Geological Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, 

5. W.7) (30 January 1968) 

B. The Members of the Commission 

(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) 

Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo Civico di Sloria Naturale, Genova, Italy) (16 December 

1954). Pisces; Echinodermata 
Professor Per Brinck (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958). 

Arthropoda, ecology 
Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958). 

Opisthobranchia; Phylogeny 
Professor Dr. Raphael Alvarado (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) 

(31 May 1960). Ecliinoidea, Asteroidea 
Dr. E. G. MuNROE (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, 

Canada) (9 June 1961). Entomology, Zoogeography 
Professor E. Binder (Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962), 

Mollusca 
Professor Harold E. Yokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, 

Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mollusca 
Dr. L. B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Hislorie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 

(28 August 1963) (Vice-President). Crustacea 
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Ornithology; Evolution 
Prof. Dr. Otto Kraus (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg, Germany) 

(28 August 1963) (Councillor). Arachnida, Myriapoda 
Dr. W. D. L. Ride (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) 

(President). Mammalia; Recent and Fossil 
Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, 

Washington, D.C, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Diptera; Systematics 
Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Department of Geology, University of Arizona, Tucson, 

Arizona, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mammalia 
Dr. Eugene Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York 1(X)24, 

U.S.A.) (30 January 1968). Ornithology 
Mr. R. V. Melville (Institute of Geological Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, S.W.7.) (30 

January 1 968) (Secretary). Palaeontology 
Dr. Y. I. Starobogatov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-iM, U.S.S.R.) 

(30 January 1958). Mollusca, Crustacea 
Professor F. M. B\YER(Instiluleof Marine Science, University of Miami, Florida 3il49, U.S.A.) 

(20 February 1972). Oclocorallia; Systematics 
Dr. John O. Corliss (University of Maryland. College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (20 

February 1 972). Protozoa ; Systematics 
Prof. Dr. H. K. Erben (Institut fiir Paldonlologie, Universilcit Bonn, 53 Bonn, Germany) (20 

February 1972). Invertebrate Palaeontology 
Professor T. Habe (National Science Museum, Ueno Park, Tokyo, Japan) (20 February 1972). 

Marine Biology 
Mr. David Heppell (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh 

EH I \JF, Scotland) (20 Februarv 1972). Mollusca 
Dr. r. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History). Cromwell Road, London SW15 BD) (20 

February 1972). Lepidoptera 
Prof. A. WiLLiNK (Instituto Miguel Lillo, Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972). Neotropical 

Hymenoplera 
Prof. B. B. Rohdendorf (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S.S.R.) 

(21 July 1972). Insecta Palaeontology 
Prof. G. Bernardi (Museum National d' Histoire Naturelle. Paris, France) (28 September 1972). 

Lepidoptera 
Dr. C. Dupius (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). 

Diptera 
Dr. T. Jaczewski (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (re-instated 

5 November 1973). Hemiptera 



BllLETm OF ZOOlOGICAl NOMMttATlRE 



Volume 31, Part 1 (pp. 1-64) 31st July 1974 

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCY 

A vacancy exists in the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature owing to the retirement of a member on reaching the age-limit. Nomi- 
nations for a candidate for election to the vacancy should be sent to the 
Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British 
Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United 
Kingdom, not later than 1 August 1974. Candidates must be eminent scientists, 
irrespective of nationaUty, with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology, 
who are known to have an interest in zoological nomenclature. 

Nominations must state the name, date of birth, nationahty, field(s) of 
specialisation and quahfications of each candidate, and the name(s) and status 
of the nominator(s). A list of the candidate's publications and his curriculum 
vitae would also be helpful. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

c/o British Museum 
(Natural History) 
Cromwell Road 
London SWl 5BD 
United Kingdom 

NOTICES 

(a) Date of Commencement of Voting. — In normal circumstances the 
Commission starts to vote on appUcations published in the Bulletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature six months after the publication of each appUcation. Any 
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present 
part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the 
Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secre- 
tariat before the close of the six-month period. 

(b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers. — The possible use by the Commission 
of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications pubUshed in the 
present part of the Bulletin [those marked with an asterisk involve the appU- 
cation of Articles 23(a-b) and 79(b)] : 

(1) Preservation of Pan Oken, 1816 and Panthera Oken, 1816 (Mammalia). 

Z.N.(S.) 482. 
*(2) Suppression of Delphinus pernettensis de Blainville, 1 827 and Delphinus 

pernettyi Desmarest, 1820 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 1974. 
*(3) Suppression of Sesarma trapezium Dana, 1852 (Crustacea: Decapoda). 

Z.N.(S.) 2016. 



2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

*(4) Suppression of Loligo stearnsii Hemphill, 1892 (MoUusca, Cephalopoda). 

Z.N.(S.)2041. 
*(5) Suppression of C>'c/og;ra Wood, 1842 (Foraminifera). Z.N.(S.) 2051. 
*(6) Suppression of achiidae Fleming, 1821 (Insecta, Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 2053. 
*(7) Suppression of Phagocata cornuta Shishkov, 1903 (Platyhelminthes, 

Turbellaria). Z.N.(S.) 2055. 
*(8) Suppression of Hvpacantus Rafinesque, 1810 (Pisces, Carangidae). 

Z.N.(S.) 2058. 



(c) The following new applications have been received since the publication 
of Vol. 30(1) on 6 July 1973. Those marked with an asterisk involve the 
application of Articles 23(a-b) and 79(b). 

*(1) Renoidea Brown, 1827 (Foraminifera): proposed suppression under the plenary 
powers. Z.N.(S.) 2043 (Richard Ponder). 

(2) Eriophyes Siebold, 1851 and Phyloptiis Dujardin, 1851 (Acari): designation of 

type-species. Z.N.(S.) 2044 (V. G. Shevtchenko). 

(3) Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758: request for a ruling on the stem of Family-Group 

Names. Z.N.(S.) 2045 (V. D. Vladykov). 

(4) Pseudogeloiiis decorsei (I. Bolivar, 1905) (Insecta, Orthoptera, Pyrgomorphidae) : 

establishment of a neotype. Z.N.(S.) 2046 (D. K. McE. Kevan). 

(5) Synalpheus neptumis (Dana, 1852) (Crustacea, Decapoda, Natantia): neotype. 

Z.N.(S.) 2047 (A. H. Banner and D. M. Banner). 
*(6) Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837 (Coleptera, Chrysomelidae) : proposed suppression 
under the plenary powers in order to conserve Leptinotarsa StSI, 1854. 
Z.N.(S.) 2048 (Richard E. White and Richard L. Jacques). 

(7) Loitomia Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed designation of type- 

species under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2049. (Claude Lemaire). 

(8) Cyclogyra Wood, 1842 (Foraminiferida): proposed suppression under the 

plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2051 (Richard Ponder). 
*(9) PLATYCHOEROPiDAE Lydeicker, 1887 (Mammalia): proposed suppression under 

the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2052 (Philip D. Gingerich). 
*(10) ACHIIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed suppression under the 

plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2053 (George C. Steyskal and David K. McAIpine). 
(11) "Gen.n., sp.n." after 1930: is the generic name available? Z.N.(S.) 2054 

(Curtis W. Sabrosky). 
*(12) Phagocata cornuta Shishkov, 1903 (Platyhelminthes, Turbellaria). Z.N.(S.) 

2055 (R. Kenk). 
*(13) Dactylopiiis Costa, 1835 and Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Homop- 

tera): proposed designation of type-species under the plenary powers with 

proposed suppression of Diaprosteci Costa, 1828. Z.N.(S.) 2056 (Douglass 

R. Miller). 
*(14) Coccus sativiis Lancry, 1791, Coccus mexicanus Lamarck, 1801, Coccus silvestris 

Lancry, 1791 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed suppression under the plenary 

powers. Z.N.(S.) 2057 (Giovanni De Lotto). 
*(15) Hypacantus Rafinesque, 1810 (Pisces, Carangidae): request for suppression 

under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2058 (Enrico Tortonese). 
(16) Conus moluccensis (Mollusca, Gastropoda): request for a ruling on the author- 
ship. Z.N.(S.) 2059 (Walter O. Cernohorsky). 
*(17) Xiphidium glaberrimum Burmeister, 1838 and Orchelimum cuticulare Audinet- 

Serville, 1838 (Insecta, Grylloptera) : proposed suppression under the plenary 

powers, with the proposed addition of Orchelimum vulgare Harris, 1848 to the 

Official List. Z.N.(S.) 2060 (V. R. Vickery). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3 

(18) Sphex viatica Linnaeus: a problem of types and revisers (Hymenoptera : 
Sphecidae or Pompilidae). Z.N.(S.) 2061 (Curtis W. Sabrosky). 

(19) Apliis pyii Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841 (Insecta, Homoptera): request for the 

conservation, with the suppression of Aphis pyri Vallot, 1802, Aphis pyri 
Kittel, 1827 and seven other binominals proposed by Kittel in 1827. 
Z.N.(S.) 2062 (V. F. Eastop). 

(20) Signiplwra giraulii Crawford, 1913 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): request for sup- 

pression as type-species of Kerrichiella Rosanov, 1965. Z.N.(S.) 2063. 
(B. R. Subba Rao). 
•(21) Echis coloralus Giinther, 1878 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed validation under 
the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2064 (Andrew F. Stimson). 

(22) Revision of Lisbon Opinions? Z.N.(S.) 2065 (R. V. Melville). 

(23) Heterodera (Nematoda): application for a Ruling on the availability of five 

specific names proposed as new for the genus in "A preliminary key to 
British species of Heterodera for use in soil examination" by B. A. Cooper, 
1955. Z.N.(S.) 2066 (A. R. Stone). 

(24) Thrips riifa Gmelin, 1790 (Insecta, Thysanoptera, Thripidae): proposed sup- 

pression under the plenary powers so as to validate Thrips nifa Haliday, 
1836. Z.N.(S.) 2067 (L. A. Mound and J. M. Palmer). 

MARGARET GREEN 

c/o British Museum (Natural History), Scientific Assistant 

Cromwell Road, International Commission on 

London, SW7 5BD, England Zoological Nomenclature 



4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

OBITUARY : PROFESSOR DOCTOR TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI 
By Maciej Mroczkowski 

Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski — an eminent Polish zoogeographer and 
taxonomist and specialist in aquatic Hemiptera (Heteroptera) — was born in 
St. Petersburg on 1 February 1899 into a Polish family and died on 25 February 
1974. He studied at the Universities in St. Petersburg and Warsaw, received 
his doctor's degree in 1925 at the University of Poznan, and was habilitated in 
1936 at the University of Warsaw. For a number of years Professor Jaczewski 
held the post of keeper and director of the Polish Zoological Museum, later 
transformed into the Institute of Zoology of the PoUsh Academy of Sciences. 
He also took part in Polish zoological expeditions to Brazil, Mexico and 
Canada. 

During the Second World War Professor Jaczewski took an active part in 
the Underground Movement, participated in a number of diversive operations 
against the German troops in Poland, and finally took part in the Warsaw 
Uprising in 1944 for which he was decorated with the Cross of Valour. 

From 1948 on, as Professor at the University of Warsaw, he took up teaching 
and in 1950-52 held the post of Prorector of the University. For his teaching 
activity he was decorated with the crosses of Officer and Commander of the 
order of Polonia Restituta. 

A full member of the Warsaw Scientific Society and an associate member 
of the Polish Academy of Sciences as well as a member of the Academy of 
Zoology (India), he was elected in 1958 as a member of the Permanent Com- 
mittee of the International Congresses of Zoology. He was also an honorary 
member and a long-time Vice-President of the Polish Entomological Society 
as well as an honorary member of the Soviet Entomological Society of the 
Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. 

Professor Jaczewski published over 100 scientific papers on the systematics 
of Heteroptera as well as 300 other works on various subjects. 

As initiator and chief editor of the basic monographic series : "Catalogue 
of the Polish Fauna", "Freshwater Fauna of Poland", "Keys for the Identifi- 
cation of Polish Insects", Professor Jaczewski performed an immense and 
unforgettable work for which he certainly earned a well-deserved place in the 
chronicles of Polish zoology. 

Above all, he will certainly be remembered as an excellent master and 
mentor to several generations of scientists — now widely recognised as world 
specialists — and taxonomists, and as one who contributed a wide range of 
ideas and concepts to many general biological subjects. 

From 1939 on Professor Jaczewski served as a member of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature; and from 1954 as Chairman of 
the "PoUsh Group for Questions of Zoological Nomenclature at the Institute 
of Zoology of the Polish Academy of Sciences" (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 291- 
292). As a member of the Commission, Dr. Jaczewski was always punctual 
and exact in his work and his comments were always constructive and helpful 
to a correct decision. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5 

PREVIOUSLY UNPUBLISHED COMMENTS ON THE USE OF THE 

PLENARY POWERS TO STABILISE THE NAMES OF THE NORTH 

EUROPEAN SPECIES BELONGING TO THE TIPULA OLERACEA 

GROUP WITHIN THE GENUS TIPULA LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS 

INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 896 

(See vol. 17 : 209-213; vol. 18 : 129-135, 145; vol. 20 : 304) 

C. P. Alexander (20.ix.I960): "Drs. Hemmingsen and Lemche have proposed, 
among other matters, to place the name Tipula subcunctans Alexander on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology in favour of the name 
Tipula czizeki de Jong. I wish to object to this arbitrary proposal on the following 
grounds. 

The name Tipula subcunctans Alexander was proposed in 1921, Tipula czizeki 
de Jong in 1925. From present knowledge the two names pertain to a single Palaearctic 
species having a vast range in Eurasia, with czizeki occurring in Europe, subcunctans 
in the eastern part of the range, being known from Sakhalin and the northern Japanese 
islands. It should be emphasized that the name subcunctans has priority and that this 
has been recognized by Japanese workers on the family, as by Ishida, in his Catalogue 
of the Japanese Tipulidae, 1955. It may be noted further that if the name subcunctans 
were to be suppressed, as suggested, that a new name would have to be proposed in order 
to validate the Asiatic subspecies or cline, creating a farcical situation in view of the 
admitted validity and priority of the name subcunctans. 

It is assumed that the reason the authors wish to preserve the name czizeki for the 
species is that it is of some economic importance in Europe and that a number of papers 
have discussed it under this name. The retention of a name on such a basis, as opposed 
to strict priority, seems unjustified. In the United States there is a comparable case 
in an allied species, the so called Smoky Crane-fly, discussed in the economic literature 
as Tipula infuscata Loew, 1863. This name later was found to be a synonym of the 
earlier Tipula cunctans Say, 1823, which is the presently accepted name for the species. 

It is my belief that there are two distinct subspecies involved in this consideration 
and that the eastern one should be called Tipula {Tipula) subcunctans subcunctans 
Alexander, 1921, the western one, T.{T.)s. czizeki de Jong. Any other action would 
appear to me to be illogical and unfair. 

A. M. Hemmingsen & H. Lemche (in reply to C. P. Alexander's comment, 
15.x. 1960): "The arguments of Dr. Alexander in his letter of September 20th do not 
appear to us to contain the whole matter concerning the species C of the "Tipula 
oleracea-gtoup" . 

In our application (paragraph 8 d), it was explained that Tipula fusca Staeger, 1840 
has priority over T. subcunctans Alexander for the species C. From Dr. Tjeder who 
(1953 : 115) cited the name/«.sca as preoccupied, we have now got the reference in 
question, namely to Carolo de Geer, 1773, Nova Acta Regiae Societalis Scientiarum 
Upsaliensis, 1 : 66. The title of that paper runs as follows; "Tipula, fusca, antennis 
simplicibus, alls longitudinaliter plicatis." 

On the last page of his paper (: 77), only the name is cited again, and in full. As 
there seems to be no place in the text where a binominal is used, there cannot be the 
slightest doubt that the name has no status in nomenclature. 

By priority, therefore, Staeger's name is the valid one, and subcunctans Alexander 
can at most be claimed for a possible Siberian subspecies. 

Our concern, however, is to obtain continuity in the use of the name czizeki as of 
importance in applied entomology, but it is not in our interest to set aside priority 
for changing the name to subcunctans rather than to fusca. 

Dr. Alexander has not yet published anything to allow a distinction between the 
Siberian and the European subspecies, but in litt. he has indicated to one of us that 
such differences exist. But even then we do not feel that the presence of one little used 
name besides another one (fusca) should prevent a reasonable solution of our problem, 
which is to obtain continuity in the usage of the name for the species C. 

Bull. zool. Nomenci, Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Dr. Alexander, in his letter, cites an example of an American species (the Smoky 
Cranefly) which is also of economic importance but which nevertheless got its name 
changed for purely nomenclatural reasons. Dr. Alexander, however, does not tell 
about the importance of this pest, neither of the feeling of those applied entomologists 
who, probably, have regarded the change as inevitable, without knowing what to do 
to prevent the change. 

In our case, we know that the change is sure to cause very strong inconveniences, 
and probably also some confusion. It is exactly this type of case which has caused the 
appearance of the statement in the Preamble of the International Code of Nomencla- 
ture about continuity of names. 

Therefore we maintain our proposals as the best ones. The only alternative 
possible appears to us to be to accept fiisca Staeger for the species C as based on 
strict priority. But we prefer the adoption of our original proposals. 

P. Brinck (16.1.1961): "In my letter on the names of the species of the Tipula 
o/eracea-group, dated January 9th 196) [published vol. 18 : 134-135] I say (paragraph 
7) that: 'The larvae cannot be identified ; they have to be reared'." 

I have just received a publication by Mr. Allan Brindle (The larvae and pupae of 
the British Tipulinae, 1960. Trans Soc. Br. Ent., 14 : 63-114) and I see that he gives 
keys presenting us with characters which can be used for separating the larvae of the 
species of the Tipula oleracea-gxoup. 

Although this fact does not in any way affect the discussion contained in my letter, 
I feel that I should inform you." 

H. Lemche (18.1.1961): "May I comment briefly on some of the points made by 
Commissioner Per Brinck in his letter of 9th January 1961, viz. 

(para. 9.) The designation of a neotype as proposed by Dr. Hemmingsen and me 
is not intended to be effective until and if, our proposals are accepted. 

(paras. 6 & 10.) The whole problem is presented most lucidly, and I agree that the 
whole case turns on the relative value of stabilising the use of the name oleracea: 

(a) To the benefit of stability in all Europe except Sweden, but setting aside 
formal claims. No confusion will occur, but there will be slight inconvenience of a 
name change in Sweden (not serious because scientists in this country have always had 
to accept the fact that oleracea outside their own country meant species A, and that 
their oleracea was known abroad as paludosd). 

(b) According to priority, and to benefit of scientists in Sweden. This action 
will overthrow immediately all usage of the names involved, in by far the greater part 
of the area where these pests occur, thus creating extensive and almost endless confusion 
in applied entomology in most parts of Europe. The claim to the opposite presented 
by Dr. Borg does not consider at all the situation outside Sweden. 

(c) The proposal of throwing away totally the name oleracea is an acceptable 
solution, in general being the one favoured by me in cases where two groups of scien- 
tists use one and the same name in two different ways. In the present case, however, 
the inconvenience to be carried by the one group (solution a) is so small that it is 
much less than that arising out of the name-change in all the rest of Europe where the 
name submendosa is completely unknown. Hence, on balance, I find it much better 
to accept the name oleracea as defined by us. 

As Dr. Hemmingsen is abroad for several months, I have answered on behalf of 
us both. 

P. Brinck (reply to Lemche's letter, above, 29.1.1961): "I should like to 
emphasize once more that we should know if the three species are all pests in Central 
Europe. 

We know that in Northern Europe only one of them is a real pest, as said already 
by Linnaeus, viz. T. oleracea Linnaeus (verus). As far as I have been informed there 
is substantial evidence for the latter species (B) only, also in other parts of Europe 
where a specialist has dealt with the problem. 

I would not say that T. submendosa is "completely unknown". I am no specialist 
of the group, but I have met with the name several times in the literature when dealing 
with the case. Specialists should be consulted if necessary." 



I 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7 

B. Tjeder (7.ii.l961): "Dr. Hemmingsen and Dr. Lemche have in their letter of 
13th December 1960 [published vol. 18 : 133-134] apparently admitted that I am right 
in considering their species "B" to be the true Tipula oleracea of Linnaeus. They 
advocate, however, that a strict priority should not be applied since it would mean 
confusion in economic entomology, and propose that their species "A" should be 
dealt with as oleracea. It seems thus evident that they consider the species "A" as a 
pest, but they have not brought forward any evidence that it is so. 

Personally I am not convinced that the species "A" is a real pest. This species 
was, by the leading German specialist in Tipulidae, Dr. B. Mannheims, Bonn, repeat- 
edly stated to occur on the banks of rivers, etc. (Sylleg. Biol., Festschr. Kleinschmidt, 
p. 237, 1950, and Die Fliegen der Palaearkt. Region, Lief 170, p. 76, 1952). It would 
be very unfortunate if the name oleracea should be accepted for a species (A) which 
perhaps will prove not to be a real pest. Such a result of the matter would be contrary 
to that which was intended by Drs. Hemmingsen and Lemche. 

The confusion of names in this group of species is not of so great a proportion as 
emphasised by Drs. Hemmingsen and Lemche. It is of relatively young date, arisen 
after 1925, when de Jong observed that three species were confused under one name, 
oleracea. It is thus of relatively little importance and by no means so serious as to 
necessitate a decision contrary to the Law of Priority." 

B. Tjeder (7.viii.l963): "Reference is made to a paper by Dr. W. E. China in 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 304, containing: 

(i) Information about the discovery that Tipula paludosa Meigen, 1830, is a 
primary homonym of Tipula paludosa Fabricius, 1 794. 

(ii) Proposal by Dr. Lemche in a letter to the office of the Commission : 

(a) to suppress the name Tipula paludosa Fabricius, 1 794 (as a nomen dubium) 

and; 

(b) to place Tipula paludosa Fabricius, 1794, on the Official Index of Rejected 

and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

I take the liberty of protesting formally against the statement that Tipula paludosa 
Fabricius, 1794 {Ent, Syst. 4, p. 239) should be a nomen dubium. The type has 
certainly gone but the very good description allows an identifying of the species as 
being the same as Tipula bimaculata of Linnaeus (Syst. Nat. X, 2, p. 586, 1758) now 
known as Dictenidia bimaculata (L.). A translation into German of Fabricius's des- 
cription was published in 1818 by Meigen {Syst. Beschr. europ. zweifl. Ins., Teil 1, 
p. 157-158) and in 1830 the same author published a still more exhaustive description, 
based on the type-specimens (of both sexes), examined by Meigen in Fabricius's 
collection. 

Dr. B. Mannheims, Bonn a/Rh., leading specialist of the Tipulinae in Europe has 
in 1951 (Die Fliegen der Palaearkt. Reg., Lief 167, p. 25) listed the species as a synonym 
of Dictenidia bimaculata (L.), basing his opinion on Meigen's above-mentioned trans- 
lation of Fabricius's description and redescription of the species. 

The identity of Tipula paludosa Fabricius, 1794, is thus solved, and consequently 
Tipula paludosa Fabricius, 1 794, cannot be considered as a nomen dubium. 

The name Tipula paludosa Meigen, 1830, a primary homonym of Tipula paludosa 
Fabricius, 1794, may therefore not be used for the species in the oleracea-group, 
indicated as species "B" by Hemmingsen and Lemche in their proposal of 1960 {Bull, 
zool. Nomencl. 17 : 209 sqq). 

The correct name of the species "B" is, however, Tipula oleracea Linnaeus, 1758, 
as I have pointed out in my earlier comments (vol. 18 : 131 sqq.). As Tipula paludosa 
Meigen, 1830, is itself a synonym of Tipula oleracea L., 1758, it seems of less taxonomic 
importance that it also is a primary homonym of Tipula paludosa Fabr., 1794. 

It is therefore proposed to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature: to set aside the proposal by Dr. Lemche, given in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 
304." 

A. M. Hutson and R. I. Vane-Wright (i. v. 1970): "We wish to comment on the 
proposals of Hemmingsen and Lemche (1960, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 209-213) 
concerning the Tipula oleracea-group. 



8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

The Linnaean collection is temporarily housed in the British Museum (Natural 
History). The specimen in this collection labelled "4. oleracea" is unquestionably 
conspecific with the "species C" of Hemmingsen and Lemche. This is confirmed by 
the dissection of the genitalia of this specimen, which is a male. However, contrary 
to the reports of Hemmingsen and Lemche, quoting Mannheims (1952, Tipulidae, 
in Lindner; Fliegen palaearkt. Reg. (15) : 76) this specimen does bear the reference 
number (4) to this species in the Syst. Nat. and there is nothing to suggest that this 
specimen is not the type specimen of Linnaeus. 

In paragraph 8(d) Hemmingsen and Lemche refer to the possible homonymy of 
Tipulafusca Staeger, 1840, but could find no reference to this. As reported by Hutson 
and Vane-Wright (1969, Entomologist's Gaz. 20 ; 237) Tipula fusca Staeger, 1840, is 
preoccupied by Tipula fusca Bloch, 1776 (Beschaft. berlin. Ges. naturf Fr., 2 : 175), 
erected for a specimen described from amber. 

Mannheims (1966, Bonn. zool. Beitr., 15 : 266) notes that Tipula paludosa Meigen, 
1830 is preoccupied by Tipula paludosa Fabricius, 1794 {Ent. Syst., 4 : 239). Fabri- 
cius' specimen(s) is lost (teste Zimsen, 1964, The Type Material of I.C. Fabricius. 
Copenhagen, p. 449) and the name must therefore be regarded as a nomen dubium. 

With regard to these points added to those of Hemmingsen and Lemche to conform 
with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature the names that would have to 
be employed for the species of this group are as follows: — 

sp.A ("oleracea Linnaeus, 1758") =submendosa Tjeder, 1941 

sp.B. ("paludosa Meigen, 1830") =fimbriata Meigen, 1818 

sp.C ("czizeki de Jong, 1925") =oleracea Linnaeus, 1758 

This would be a most unfortunate decision resulting in considerable confusion 
both for taxonomists and non-taxonomists involved in the study of this much quoted 
species. We therefore feel that the Code, produced as a guide toward a stable nomen- 
clature, should not be used to add further confusion to an already confusing situation, 
and that the proposals of Hemmingsen and Lemche (viz. to retain the names oleracea, 
paludosa and czizeki in the combination listed above) should be accepted. 

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF THE NAME 
GALAXIAS DELFINI PHILIPPI, 1895 (PISCES, GALAXIIDAE). 

ZN.(S.) 1877 

By Dr. Kenning Lemche {Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) 

The case of Galaxias delfini does not have any formal proposals, i.e. it is not 
crystal clear what are the actions to be taken by the Commission. May I translate 
the informal suggestions given by the author, and present the following proposals: 

1. Under the plenary powers to suppress the specific name delfini Philippi, 1895, 

as cited in the combination Galaxias delfini. 

2. To place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology the 

specific name delfini Philippi, 1895 as cited in the combination Galaxias 
delfini. 

ADDITION TO THE APPLICATION CONCERNING THE SUPPRESSION 

OF DIOMEDEA LEPTORHYNCHA COUES, 1866. Z.N.(S.) 1947 

(See volume 28 : 106) 

By George E. Watson (Curator, Division of Birds, Smitltsonian Institution, National 
Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C.) 

The name Diomedea leptorhyncha Coues, 1866, has never been used as a senior 
synonym in the primary literature. On the other hand, Diomedea irrorata Salvin, 
1883, has been used repeatedly in biological and conservation literature dealing with 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9 

the Galapagos Albatross during the past 50 years. The following is a list of references 
which satisfies the requirements of Article 79(b): 

Brosset, A. 1963. Atatida 31 : 83 

Fisher, A. K. and Wetmore, A. 1931. Proc. U.S. nam. Mus. 79 (10) : 26 

Fleming, C. A. 1950 EitiK 49 : 176 

Harris, M. P. 1969. J. Zool., Land. 159 : 151 

1969. Ibis 111 : 97 
1973. Ibis 115 : 483 

Helmayr, C. E. and Conover, B. 1948. Catalogue of birds of the Americas, 

Part l,No. 2 :43 
Koepke, M. 1964. Las aves del departamento de Lima, Peru : 12 1970. The 

birds of the department of Lima, Peru : 1 8 
Leveque, R. 1963. Terre Vie 110 : 408 
Meyer de Schauensee, R. 1966. The species of birds of South America : 12 

1970. A guide to the birds of South America Livingston Publishing Company, 
for Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Wynnewood : 12 

Murphy, R. C. 1925. Bird islands of Peru. New York & London : 273 

1936. Oceanic birds of South America. New York : 530 
Nelson, B. 1968. Galapagos. Longmans, Green & Co. Ltd., London : 321 
Olrog, C. C. 1968. Las aves sudamericaiias vol. 1, Universidad Nacional de 

Tucuman, Tucuman : 52 
Peters, J. L. 1931. Checklist of birds of the world, vol. I : 43 
Stresemann, E. and Stresemann, V. 1966. J. Orn. Lpz. 107 (Sonderheft) : 299 
Swarth, H. S. 1931. Occ. Pap. Calif Acad. Sci. 18 : 33 
Thomson, A. L. 1964. A new dictionary of birds : 44 

Vincent, J. 1966. Int. Un. Protect. Nature Red data book vol. 2: Aves : 2/31 
Watson, G. E. and Divoky, G. J. 1971. Condor 13 : 4Z1 
Wetmore, A. 1965. The birds of the Republic of Panama, vol. 1. Smithson. 

misc. Collns 150 : 34 
Thus a prima facie case can be made under Article 79(b) of the International Code 
of Zoological Nomenclature for the suppression of Diomedea leptorhyncha Coues, 
1866, in favour of Diomedea irrorata Salvin, 1883, which is the name exclusively used 
for the Galapagos Albatross. 

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF PARAONIS GRUBE, 

1872 IN FAVOUR OF PARAONIS CERRUTI, 1909 UNDER THE 

PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1993 

(See volume 29 : 209-211) 

By P. Uschakov {Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, USSR) and 

V. Strelzov (Murmansk Marine Biological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Dalnie 

Zelentsy, Murmansk, USSR) 

It has been suggested to us that the name Paraonis might be retained with its original 
author and date by the designation of a neotype for Paraonis tenera Grube, 1872. 
This is, from the nominal point of view rather interesting, for by choosing Aonides 
fulgens as neotype the same result would be achieved in nomenclature as that suggested 
by us. However, as far as taxonomy is concerned, a solution of this kind imposes 
certain difficulties. 

In describing Paraonis tenera certain features (a caruncle=a dorsal antenna on the 
prostomium, special neuropodial setae) are mentioned. These make us suppose that 
Paraonis tenera is one of the species belonging to the genus Aricidea. Besides, Aonides 
fulgens is not to be met with in the parts where Paraonis tenera has been found and 
described. It is the latter circumstance that makes us hold that the suggestion that 
we sent to the Commission would be more to the point. 

Bull. zool. Nomenci, Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

As for the type-species of Levinsenia (a specimen of which if selected neotype of 
Paraonis tenera would make Levinsenia a junior objective synonym), it has not been 
designated yet. The genus was originally established with two species — Aonides fulgens 
and A. gracilis, both being referred to in the same paper and the former given full 
details. At the present time we take these species as belonging to two different 
genera, i.e. A. fulgens is considered as the type-species of Paraonis, while A. gracilis 
is the type-species of Tauberia. Thus, the designation oi A. gracilis as the type-species 
oi Levinsenia would bring about an alteration in the names given to the genera. 

COMMENT AND REQUEST FOR A DECLARATION ON PROPOSAL 

FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 33a OF THE INTERNATIONAL 

CODE. Z.N.(S.) 1966 

By Eugene Eisenmann {American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) 

Fawcett and Smith (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 50-52, 1971) request exercise of the 
plenary powers to emend Liopelmatina to Leiopelmatidae (Amphibia). Sabrosky 
{Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 156-157, 1972) questions the need for exercise of the plenary 
powers and proposes an amendment to the Code by adding a subsection (iii) to Article 
33a, providing that a family group name based on an "unjustified emendation" of a 
genus-group name is to be corrected to the original spelling of the name emended, 
unless the emendation has become the valid name of the genus. 

I favour the proposed amendment of the Code. To Sabrosky's reason for the 
"unless" clause I would add that there are a number of situations where usage has 
made an "unjustified emendation" the valid name, not only under Article 23(b) but 
under the Monaco amendments, especially when the Commission has adopted the 
emendation. As the proposed amendment is merely clarifying and formal amendment 
may be long delayed, I propose that in the interim it be adopted as a Declaration. 

Admittedly there is some uncertainty as to the power to validate Leiopelmatidae 
under the present Code provisions without recourse to the plenary powers and much 
delay. In fairness to the original applicants I suggest that the plenary powers be 
exercised. 

COMMENT ON THE PROBLEM OF THE TYPE-SPECIES OF THE 

GENUS LUCINA (MOLLUSCA : PELECYPODA). Z.N.(S.) 2001 

(See volume 29 : 158-161) 

By Henning Lemche {Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) 

The proposals in the Lucina case are much in need of clarification. First, the 
appeal to the Commission to clarify the issue on the contents of genera published 
originally without included species, is unsuited for direct voting. I move that it be 
taken out of the present case and treated separately. 

Further, paragraph 2 of the Keen/Abbott proposals is not formally correct, and 
as there are counter proposals, I have tried to put it all together in a suitable form, 
without taking any view on the matter at present. I propose to let the Commission 
vote on two alternatives: 
A. (The Keen/Abbott proposals) 

(1) Under the plenary powers to set aside all type selections for Lucina Bruguiere, 

1797 prior to the present one and, having done so, to 

(2) designate the nominal species Tellina pectinata Gmelin, 1791 as the type of 

Lucina Bruguiere, 1797; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lucina 

Bruguiere, 1797 (gender : feminine), type-species as designated under (2) 
above: Tellina pectinata Gmelin, 1791; 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1 1 

(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name pectinata 
Gmelin, 1791, type-species of Lucina Bruguiere, 1797, as designated under 
(2) above. 
B. (The Rehder and Bretsky/Britton proposals) 

(1) Under the plenary powers to set aside all type selection for Lucina Bruguiere, 

1797 prior to this present one, and having done so, to 

(2) designate the nominal species Venus pensyhanica Linnaeus, 1 758 as the type- 

species of Lucina Bruguiere, 1797; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lucina 

Bruguiere, 1797 (gender : feminine), type-species as designated under (2) 
above Venus pensyhanica Linnaeus, 1758; 

(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names 

(a) pensyhanica Linnaeus, 1758, as cited in the binomen Venus pensylvanica, 
type of the genus Lucina Bruguiere, 1797 as designated under (2) above; 

(b) pectinata Gmelin, 1791, as cited in the combination Tellina pectinata. 

COMMENT ON THE REQUEST FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A 
TYPE-SPECIES OF TUTU FA JOUSSEAUME, 1881. Z.N.(S.) 2021 

By H. A. Rehder {Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 

I am in basic agreement with Dr. A. G. Beu on the desirability of conserving 
the superspecific name Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 by designating a type-species for it 
under the plenary powers (Beu, 1973). I have had some correspondence on this 
problem with Dr. Beu who now feels that some minor changes in his original request 
are desirable. He has suggested that I incorporate these changes in my comments, a 
procedure I am happy to carry out, as follows: 

2. The species that Jousseaume originally designated as the type of his genus 
Tutufa is Murex lainpas Linnaeus, 1758. This species, however, is a composite one, 
as Beu has pointed out in his application and in an earlier paper (Beu, 1970, p. 210), 
and should be restricted to the species of the genus Charonia (Cymatiidae) from the 
Mediterranean previously known as C nodiferum (Lamarck, 1822). The other 
reference that Linnaeus cited under Murex lampas (Linnaeus, 1758, p. 748) consists 
of two figures in Gualtieri that represent a species of Tutufa. The first revision of 
Murex lampas wa.s done by Gmelin in the 13th edition of the Systema Naturae (Gmelin, 
1791, p. 3532). Here he transfers the Gualtieri reference from Murex lampas to the 
subspecies bubo, leaving only Rondelet's figure of a Charonia under lampas. However, 
his references under bubo and rubeta are still a mixture of several species. In the 12th 
edition of the Systema Naturae (Linnaeus, 1767, p. 1216), the subspecies bubo and 
rubeta that Linnaeus had placed under Murex rana were transferred to lampas as 
subspecies. 

3. Under each of his varieties bubo and rubeta of Murex rana Linnaeus, 1758, 
cites one figure in Rumphius. For bubo the reference is Rumphius, p. 28, figure C, 
which the author describes as possessing a white, porcellanous aperture. This, as 
Hedley (1916, p. 41) and before him Vanatta (1914, p. 80) pointed out, is the same as 
Bursa {Tulufa) rubeta var. gigantea E. A. Smith (1914, p. 230). Judging from the 
collections in the National Museum of Natural History, this is the most common 
species, found through the Indo-Pacific region, and is, as Beu states in his request, 
"probably the form Jousseaume thought of as typical of the broad species he meant by 
the name Murex lampas.^' 

4. Although, as Beu states (op. cit., p. 55), Bursa (or Tutufa) rubeta may have 
been more commonly used in place of Murex lampas in the years since Smith's paper, 
some of the most recent references have used bubo Linnaeus to replace the Murex 
lampas of authors (Kuroda, Habe, and Oyama, 1971, p. 134; Wilson and Gillett, 
1972, p. 80). 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

5. I, therefore, believe that stability would be best served by choosing Murex lana 
var. bubo Linnaeus, 1758 (Murex lampas var. bubo Linnaeus, 1 767), as the type-species 
of Tutufa. To consolidate this designation it would be advisable when the genus is 
monographically treated to designate as neotype of Tutufa bubo (Linnaeus) the type 
specimen of Bursa (Tutufa) rubeta gigaiuea E. A. Smith, 1914, which is considered, as 
pointed out above, to be a synonym of bubo Linnaeus. It may be mentioned that 
Linnaeus did not possess in his collection a specimen of this species, and the specimen 
labelled as Murex lampas in the Museum Ulricae, now at the University of Uppsala, is 
Murex lotorium {=Cymatium (Ranularia) lotorium (Linnaeus, 1758)). 

I, therefore, request that the Commission amend Dr. Beu's original application as 
follows: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type-species 

for the genus Tutufa Jousseaume, and having done so, to designate Murex 
rana var. bubo Linnaeus, 1758 as type-species of Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881; 

(2) to place the generic name Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (gender : feminine), 

type-species (by designation under (1) above) Murex rana var. bubo Linnaeus, 
1758, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; 

(3) to place the specific name bubo Linnaeus, 1758 (as published in the combination 

Murex rana var. bubo) on the Official List of Specific Names In Zoology. 

References 

Beu, a. G. 1970. The Mollusca of the genus Charonia (Family Cymatiidae). 
Trans. R. Soc. N.Z. Biol. Sci. 11(16) : 205-223. 

1973. Tutufa Jousseaume, 1881 (Gastropoda): Request for designation of 

type-species under the plenary powers Z.N.(S) 2021. Bull. zool. Nomencl., 
30(1) : 54-56. 

Gmelin, J. F. 1791. Syslema Naturae, ed. 13, 1(6). Leipzig. 

Hedley, C. 1916. Further notes on Bursa rubeta. Jour. Conch. 15(2) : 41-42. 

KuRODA, T., Habe, T., and Oyama, K. 1971. The Sea Shells of Sagami Bay. 

Tokyo. 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, ed. 10, 1 Regnum Anirtmle. Stockholm. 

1767. Systenuj Naturae, ed. 12 ref. 1 (2). Stockholm. 

Smith, E. A. 1914. Note on Bursa {tutufa) rubeta (Bolten)=7r/7ort lampas 

(Lamarck) et auct.). Jour. Conch., 14(8) : 225 - 231. 
Vanatta, E. G. 1914. Notes on Ranella lampas of authors. Nautilus, 28(7) : 80. 
Wii^ON, B. R., and Gillett, K. 1972. Australian Shells. Rutland, Vermont, 

and Tokyo. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13 

OPINION 1014 

OKENIA MENKE, 1830 (MOLLUSCA, OPISTHOBRANCHIA): 
PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the following names are sup- 
pressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law 
of Homonymy: 

(a) the generic name Idalla 0rsted, 1844, type-species Idalla caudata 

Orsted, 1844; 

(b) (i) the specific name quadricornis Montagu, 1815, as published in the 

binomen Doris quadricornis; 
(ii) the specific name caudata 0rsted, 1 844, as published in the binomen 
Idalla caudata. 

(2) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the generic name 
Cargoa Vogel & Schultz, 1970, type-species by original designation, Cargoa 
cupella Vogel & Schultz, 1970 is an available name. 

(3) Under the plenary powers the name Okenia Menke, 1830 is declared 
available from that date and Okenia Menke, 1830 (gender: feminine) (in 
synonymy of Idalia preoccupied), type-species by monotypy, Idalia elegans 
Leuckart, 1828, is hereby placed on the Official list of Generic Names in Zoology, 
with the Name Number 1995. 

(4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the OflScial List of 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : 

(a) elegans Leuckart, 1828, as published in the binomen Idalia elegans 

(type-species of Okenia Menke, 1830) (Name No. 2520); 

(b) aspersa Alder & Hancock, 1845, as published in the binomen Idalia 

aspersa (Name No. 2521). 

(5) The generic name Idalla 0rsted, 1 844 as suppressed under the plenary 
powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Names in Zoology, with the Name Number 2045. 

(6) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) quadricornis Montagu, 1815, as published in the binomen Doris quadri- 

cornis (Name No. 992); 

(b) caudata 0rsted, 1844, as published in the binomen Idalla caudata (Name 

No. 993), both as suppressed in (l)(b) above. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1931) 

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. 
Henning Lemche in June 1970. The application was sent to the printer in July 
1970 and was published on 29 March 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 265-266. 
Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was 
given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to three 
specialist serials. The proposals were supported by Dr. Malcolm Edmunds, 
Dr. Harald Rehder, Prof. Myra Keen and Dr. Robert Burn. Following a 
comment by Dr. C. J. Risso-Dominguez, Dr. Lerache added proposal 6. 
A further addition was necessary and all the proposals were brought together 
and published on 29 December 1972 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 196. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 28th February 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)7 either for or against 
the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 196. At the close of the pre- 
scribed voting period on 28th May 1973, the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — twenty-one (21), received in the following order: 
Holthuis, Eisenmann, Lemche, Mayr, Simpson, Corliss, Yokes, Habe, Alvarado, 
Rohdendorf, WiUink, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Nye, Binder, Brinck, 
Bernard!, Bayer, Heppell (except proposals 1(b) (i) and (6)(a)), Ride. 

Negative votes — none (0). 

Mr. Melville withdrew, M. Dupuis abstained and Dr. Kraus returned a late 
affirmative vote. 

Mr. Melville drew attention to the fact that Voting Paper (73)7 was issued 
before the close of the six-month period after the publication of the final 
proposals on 29th December 1972. However since there were no negative 
votes and no comments were received from any zoologist between 29 December 
1972 and 29 June 1973, the voting paper was not re-issued. The wording of the 
Opinion reflects the comments made by Commissioners on that Voting Paper. 

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their 
votes : 

Dr. W. D. L. Ride (22.V.1973): "The material in the application, and the 
comments, do not completely clarify the situation for me, which may be 
different from that concluded by the applicant. If the publication by Menke 
(1830) of Okenia is as stated in paragraph 3 of Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 265, 
and is not accompanied by a description or definition, it is not available from 
that work despite its treatment as an available name prior to 1961 (Art. 11(d)). 
It would still need to satisfy the provisions of Art. 12, and citation in synonymy, 
in itself, is not an indication (Art.l6(b)(ii)). 

"Unless there is another, as yet uru'evealed usage before 1838, Okenia 
becomes (according to Vogel & Schultz, 1970, p. 388) preoccupied in homonymy 
in 1838 through its use, by Zetterstedt in Diptera (the reference to Thiele 1831, 
is a proof-reading error for 1931). If this is the case Cargoa Vogel & Schultz 
is an available name (which the authors specifically state is not a replacement 
name for Okenia — whatever that may mean — since they 'believe' that the type 
of Okenia should be 'assigned' to it). 

"It is clear that Okenia is a name in general use and that it should be ren- 
dered available. Further, the comments by Burn and of Risso-Dominguez 
reveal an unresolved taxonomic situation which may require the retention of 
both Okenia and Cargoa. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15 

"I am of the opinion that the use of the plenary powers is required, and 
justified, to place the availability of both names beyond doubt and not merely 
to suppress Idalla, quadricornis and caudata. Accordingly, I request that, 
providing proposals (2) and (3) of the application are accepted by a sufficient 
number of Commissioners, the Opinion should be worded appropriately. The 
purpose stated in the latter part of proposal (2) (i.e. 'for those not consider- 
ing . . .') is unnecessary because the case of Cargoa (as an available generic 
name with its own type-species and date) would not differ from that of any 
other subjective synonymy." 

Dr. D. Heppell (24.V.1973): "I vote against proposals (l)(b)(i) and (6)(a) 
as I am not satisfied that Doris quadricornis Montagu should be rejected. 
Once Idalia elegans and /. aspersa have been placed on the Official List of 
Specific Names, as proposed in Section (4) the threat to their stabiHty arising 
from possible synonymy with a senior name is surely removed if the Official 
Lists have any significance at all. The identification of Doris quadricornis 
with Idalia elegans in the Plymouth Marine Fauna derives from Iredale & 
O'Donoghue, 1923. List of British nudibranchiate Mollusca. Proc. malac. Soc. 
Land. 15 : 195-233. (see p. 218.)" 

ORIGINAL REFERENCES 

The following are the original references for the names placed on the 
OflScial Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in this Opinion : 
aspersa, Idalia, Alder & Hancock, 1845, Mon. Brit, nudibr. Mollusca Fam. 1, 

pi. 26 
caudata, Idalla, 0rsted, 1 844, De regionis marinis : 73 
elegans, Idalia, Leuckart, 1828, Brev. Anim. : 15 
Idalla 0rsted, 1 844, De regionis marinis : 73 

Okenia Menke, 1830, Synopsis methodica molluscorum generum omnium : 10 
quadricornis, Doris, Montagu, 1815, Trans. Linn. Soc. 11 : 17 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (73)7 were cast as set out above, 
that the proposals contained in the Voting Paper have been duly adopted under 
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the 
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1014. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
20 November 1973 



16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

OPINION 1015 

SOLENIUS LEPELETIER & BRULL6, 1834 (INSECTA, 

HYMENOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER 

THE PLENARY POWERS 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species 
made prior to this Ruling for the genus Solenius Lepeletier & Brulle, 1834 are 
hereby set aside, and the nominal species Solenius interruptus Lepeletier & 
Brulle, 1834 is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. 

(2) The generic name Solenius Lepeletier & Brulle, 1834 (gender : mascu- 
line), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, 
Solenius interruptus Lepeletier & Brulle, 1834, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1996. 

(3) The specific name interruptus Lepeletier & Brulle, 1834, as published 
in the binomen Solenius interruptus (type-species of Solenius Lepeletier & Brulle, 
1834) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the 
Name Number 2522. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1827) 

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. 
H. K. Court and Dr. A. S. Menke in September 1967. The application was sent 
to the printer on 4 October 1967 and was published on 18 January 1968 in 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 356-358. Public Notice of the possible use of the 
plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin 
as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials. No comment 
was received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 13 November 1969 the Members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (69)51 either for or against 
the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 357. At the close of the voting 
period on 13 February 1970 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — twenty-two (22), received in the following order: China, 
Yokes, Obruchev, Eisenmann, Mayr, Alvarado, Simpson, Holthuis, do Amaral, 
Lemche, Tortonese, Starobogatov, Jaczewski, Melville, Binder, Evans, Bonnet, 
Ride, Kraus, Forest, Mertens, Brinck. 

Negative votes — one (1): Sabrosky. 

Voting Papers not returned — one (1): Munroe. 
In returning his negative vote. Dr. Sabrosky made the following comment 
(7.1.1970): "I vote against the proposals, albeit somewhat reluctantly, because 
I disagree with several stages in the history of the case, while agreeing with the 
desire to retain Solenius in its accustomed meaning for a group of crabronid 
wasps. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 

"This is clearly a case of misidentified type-species and therefore properly 
should have been decided under Article 70. The misidentification was clearly 
recognized by Richards (1935) and the proposal by Benson et al. (1947) was 
based upon that fact. It is unfortunate that this case was not settled long ago 
upon that basis. 

"The present apphcants note Pate's rejection of Westwood (1839) as type 
designation, and they cite Direction 32 (1956) of the International Commission, 
published almost 20 years after Pate's catalogue. However, it is of more 
significance and relevance to note the Commission's Opinion 71, published in 
1922 (15 years prior to Pate's catalogue), which stated that Westwood's 'typical 
species' 'are to be accepted as definite designations of genotypes.' Pate's action 
was in defiance of a duly rendered Opinion of the Commission, and moreover 
was contrary to the then long-held views 'by workers of the 1 800's and early 
1900's'. Hence the action was unjustified on both legalistic grounds and on 
usage. I do not favour the acquiescence to this defiance that would be implied 
by approval of the present application. I would much prefer to see Crabro 
continuus Fabricius designated as type of Solenius." 

The Secretary communicated this information to Dr. Court on 8th June 
1970, but received no reply. When Dr. Menke reopened the question (13.x. 1971) 
he was sent a copy of the Secretary's letter to Dr. Court, and replied as follows 
to Dr. Sabrosky's comment : 

Dr. Menke (19.1.1972): "It is true, as Dr. Sabrosky points out, that Pate defied 
the rules of the ICZN in determining the type-species of Solenius, but I would 
hate to see a ruling in which continuus was made the type of the taxon. To do 
so would mean that the large crabronine genus Ectemnius would become a 
junior synonym of Solenius, and that the subgenus of Lestica currently known 
as Solenius would be without a name. This change would upset usage that 
has been common in the most significant crabronid hterature for some 30 years. 
I think in this instance that stabihty is more desirable than a furtherance of the 
seesaw interpretation of the name Solenius which Dr. Sabrosky seems to feel is 
warranted because of Pate's illegal practice. I don't condone Pate's action, but 
it is after all more in the realm of unfortunate history now." 

The outcome of the case is as though it had been dealt with under Article 70, 
since the designation of the type-species so made appears to be the one that 
best serves stability of nomenclature. The Opinion is therefore being pubhshed. 

Original References 

The following are the original references for names placed on the OflBcial 
Lists by the Ruhng given in the present Opinion : 

interruptus, Solenius, Lepeletier & BruUe, 1834, Ann. Sac. ent. Fr. 3 : 683-810 
Solenius Lepeletier & Brulle, 1834, Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. 3 : 683-810 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (69)51 were cast as set out 
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted 



18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken being the decision of 
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1015. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
3 January 1974 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19 

OPINION 1016 

CRIBRILINA PUNCTATA (HASSALL, 1841): DESIGNATION OF A 
NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the designation by Lagaaij, 1952, 
of a lectotype for Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841, is hereby set aside and the 
specimen described by Ryland & Stebbing 1971, Irish Naturalists' Journal, 
17(3) : 66 and figure 2b. ; now in the collection of the British Museum (Natural 
History) with the Registration Number "1973.4.6.1." is hereby accepted as 
neotype of Cribrilina punctata (Hassall, 1841). 

(2) The species Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841, is hereby confirmed as 
type-species of Cribrilina Gray, 1848. 

(3) The generic name Cribrilina Gray, 1848 (gender: feminine), type-species 
by monotypy, Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1997. 

(4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: 

(a) punctata Hassall, 1841, as published in the binomen Lepralia punctata, 

as defined by the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1) 
above (type-species of Cribrilina Gray, 1848) (Name Number 2523); 

(b) cryptooecium Norman, 1903, as pubUshed in the binomen Cribrilina 

crvptooecium, as defined by the lectotype designated by Ryland & 
Stebbing, 1968 (Name Number 2524). 



HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1837) 

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. 
J. S. Ryland and Mr. A. R. D. Stebbing in February 1968. The application was 
sent to the printer on 15 February 1968 and was pubhshed on 24 May 1968 in 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 62-64. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary 
powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as 
to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 21 : 184). No comment was received. 



DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 28 January 1970 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (70)5 either for or against the 
proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 63. At the close of the prescribed 
Voting period on 28 April 1970 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — twenty-two (22), received in the following order: China, 
Lemche, Holthuis, Bonnet, Yokes, Evans, Jaczewski, Munroe, Tortonese, 

Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Obruchev, do Amaral, Melville, Sabrosky, Mayr, Binder, Ride, Brinck, Staro- 
bogatov. Forest, Kraus, Alvarado, Mertens. 

Negative votes — two (2): Eisenmann, Simpson. 

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their 
votes : 

Dr. E. Eisemann (9.ii.70): "On the data provided in the appUcation it 
seems to me that Lagaaij's (1952) designation as lectotype of specimen 
1847.9.16.118 was correct, and agreed with Hassall's (1841) description of 
punctata. It was Norman (1903) who erred in calling true punctata 'cryp- 
tooeciuni' and assigning the name punctata to a different species. No evidence 
is provided of overwhelming usage to justify transfer of the name punctata. 
What is needed is a new name (if none exists in the literature) for Norman's 
'punctata'." 

Prof. G. G. Simpson (30.iii.70): "The aim of the application is evidently 
laudable, but the device of designating a neotype is not, none of the conditions 
for proposal of a neotype evidently being met." 

Dr. W. D. L. Ride (13.iv.70): "I request the Secretary to include locality and 
other data of collection (so far as it is known) in the designation of the neotype 
of Lepralia punctata when he drafts the Opinion for publication." 

On enquiry it was found that the type locality of the specimen described by 
Ryland & Stebbing, 1968, proposed to be the neotype of Cribrilina punctata 
(Hassall, 1841) was unknown. Therefore this specimen was not suitable for 
designation as a neotype under the plenary powers, and the authors were asked 
to propose another. 

Therefore the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the 
One-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)4, issued on 22 November 1973 either 
for or against the specimen described by Ryland & Stebbing in Irish Naturalist's 
Journal 17(3) 1971 : 66, fig. 2b, as acceptable as neotype of Cribrilina punctata 
(Hassall, 1841). This specimen comes from Raasay Sound, Inner Hebrides, 
where it was dredged on 14 October 1958 (Station 5, Ryland (1963) "A collection 
of Polyzoa from the west of Scotland" Scottish Naturalist 71 : 13-22) and is 
now in the collection of the British Museum (Natural History) with the regis- 
tration Number 1973.4.6.1. 

At the close of the voting period on 22 December 1973 the state of the 
voting was as follows : 

Affirmative votes — nineteen (19), received in the following order: Erben, 
Yokes, Melville, Mayr, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Alvarado, Lemche, Heppell, 
Binder, Sabrosky, Habe, Rohdendorf, Bayer, Bernardi, Tortonese, Jaczewski, 
Willink, Nye. 

Negative votes — one (1): Dupuis. 

Voting papers not returned — six (6): Brinck, Corliss, Munroe, Ride, 
Simpson, Starobogatov. 

Dr. Kraus returned a late affirmative vote. In returning his vote M. Dupuis 
made the following comment (26.xi.1973): "Cette affaire montre bien a quel 
point certaines propositions sont hatives. EUe permettrait a elle seule d'instruire 
tout le proces des Neotypes." 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21 

Original References 

CribrilinaJ. E. Gray, 1848, List. Brit. Anim. (1) : 117, 147 

cryptooecium, Cribrilina, Norman, 1903, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 12 : 102 

punctata, Lepralia, Hassall, 1841, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 7 : 368, pi. IX, fig. 7 

The following are the original references for the designation of type- 
specimens for two species concerned in the present Ruling: 
Lectotype for Cribrilina cryptooecium Norman, 1903: Ryland & Stebbing, 1968, 

Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 63 
Neotype for Lepralia punctata Hassall, 1841: Ryland & Stebbing, 1971, Ir. 

Nat. J. 17 : 66 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (70)5 and on Voting Paper 
(OM)(73)4 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in those 
Voting Papers have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the 
decision so taken being the decision of the International Commission, is truly 
recorded in the present Opinion No. 1016. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
9 January 1974 



22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

OPINION 1017 

TRYCHOSIS FOERSTER, 1868 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): 
DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species 
for the nominal genus Trychosis Foerster, 1868, made prior to this Ruling are 
hereby set aside, and the nominal species Cryptus ambiguus Tschek, 1870 is 
hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. 

(2) The generic name Trychosis Foerster, 1868 (gender; feminine) type- 
species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cryptus ambiguus 
Tschek, 1870, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, 
with the Name Number 1998. 

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: 

(a) ambiguus Tschek, 1870 (Ker/i. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 20 : 145) as pubUshed 

in the binomen Cryptus ambiguus (type-species of Trychosis Foerster, 
1868) (Name No. 2525). 

(b) titillator Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. ed. 10 : 565) as pubhshed in the 

binomen Ichneumon titillator (Name No. 2526) and as interpreted by 
the lectotype designated by van Rossem (1965). 



HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z,N.(S.) 1712) 

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. G 
van Rossem in July 1965. Dr. van Rossem's application was sent to the 
printer on 12 August 1965 and was published on 2 November 1965 in Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 22 : 259-260. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers 
in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials. Comments were received from 
Mr. J. F. Perkins {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : 8) to which Dr. van Rossem replied 
(Bull. 23 : 8) and from Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (Bull. 24 : 73). 



DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 1 September 1967 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (67)42 either for or against the 
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 260. At the close of the voting 
period on 1 December 1967 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — nine (9) received in the following order: Holthuis, Yokes, 
Obruchev, Mayr, Brinck, Bonnet, Boschma, Binder, Ride*. 

Negative votes — eleven (11): China, Munroe, Simpson, Sabrosky, do 
Amaral, Jaczewski, Alvarado, Uchida, Mertens, Forest, Kraus. 

*Dr. Ride asked that ambiguus Tschek should be designated as the nameof the type-species. 
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23 

Dr. Lemche abstained from voting, Dr. Evans was on leave of absence and 
Professor Tortonese returned a late affirmative vote. 

Several of the Commissioners stated that the alternative proposals suggested 
by Dr. Sabrosky (Bull. 24 : 73-74) should have been voted on, and no provision 
had been made for this on Voting Paper (67)42. Therefore, Voting Paper 
(69)38 was issued on 16 June 1969 on which Commissioners were invited to 
vote, under the Three-Month Rule, in part 1 either for or against the use of the 
plenary powers in this case, and in part 2 for either van Rossem's or Sabrosky's 
proposals, the latter being in two parts. At the close of the voting period on 
16 September 1969 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Part I Affirmative votes — sixteen (16), received in the following order: 
China, Holthuis, Lemche, Jaczewski, Eisenmann, Vokes, Mayr, Obruchev, 
Melville, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Binder, Sabrosky, Kraus, Forest, Ride. 

Negative votes — one (1): do Amaral. 

Part 2 Alternative A, (that mesocastanus be designated the valid name of 
the type-species of Trychosis). Affirmative votes — one (1): Holthuis. 

Negative votes — fifteen (15): China, Lemche, Jaczewski, Eisenmann, Vokes, 
Mayr, Obruchev, Melville, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Binder, Sabrosky, Kraus, 
Forest, Ride. 

Alternative B, section (i) (that ambiguus be designated as the valid name of 
the type-species of Trychosis). Affirmative votes — sixteen (16): China, Lemche, 
Jaczewski, Eisenmann, Vokes, Mayr, Obruchev, Melville, Starobogatov, 
Alvarado, Binder, Sabrosky, do Amaral, Kraus, Forest, Ride. 

Negative votes — one (1): Holthuis. 

Alternative B, section (ii) (for or against the setting aside of van Rossem's 
first reviser, 1966, action). Affirmative votes — thirteen (13): China, Lemche, 
Jaczewski, Eisenmann, Mayr, Obruchev, Melville, Starobogatov, Binder, 
Sabrosky, Kraus, Forest, Ride. 

Negative votes — one (1): Holthuis. 

Original References 

The following are the original references for names placed on the Official 
Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: 
ambiguus, Cryptus, Tschek, 1870, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 20 : 145 
titillator. Ichneumon, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 565 
Trychosis Foerster, 1868, Verh. naturh. Ver. preuss. Rheinl. 25 : 187. 

The reference for the lectotype designation of Ichneumon titillator Linnaeus, 
1758 is: van Rossem, G., 1965, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 259. 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (69)38 were cast as set out 
above, that the proposal contained in the Voting Paper has been duly adopted 
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of 
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1017. 

R. V. MELVILLE Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London, 24 January 1974 



24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

OPINION 1018 

POLANISA WALKER, 1875 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): SUPPRESSED 
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Polanisa 
Walker, 1875, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but 
not for those of the Law of Homonymy. 

(2) The generic name Polanisa Walker, 1875 (as suppressed in (1) above) is 
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2046. 



HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1829) 

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. 
J. T. Wiebes in October 1967. Dr. Wiebes' application was sent to the printer 
on 4 October 1967 and was published on 7 December 1967 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
23 : 319-320. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the 
present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to other pre- 
scribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) 
and to seven entomological serials. 



DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 28 August 1969 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (69)46 either for or against the 
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 320. At the close of the pre- 
scribed voting period on 28 November 1969 the state of the voting was as 
follows : 

Affirmative votes — seventeen (17): China, Holthuis, Melville, Mayr, Yokes, 
do Amaral, Starobogatov, Obruchev, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Brinck, Evans, 
Ride, Forest, Alvarado. 

Negative votes — four (4): Simpson, Binder, Sabrosky, Kraus. 

Voting papers not returned — one (1): Munroe. 

Doctors Eisenmann and Lemche abstained from voting. 

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning votes: 

Prof. E. Mayr (9.ix.69): "It would seem unwise to change the name of an 
economically important insect (even though the application says deplorably 
little about the availability of Polanisa). Nor would it make sense to place a 
generic name on the Official List, only to abandon it when an unused senior 
synonym is found". 

Prof. G. G. Simpson (16.ix.l9): "The vote "against" follows my opinion that 
action should not be taken on the proposal as presented. It is partly erroneous, 
if other parts are taken at face value and hence in any case contradictory, and 
it is partly inadequate". 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25 

Dr. H. Lemche (4.x. 69): "This case cannot be voted on in this manner. I 
have NOT opposed the apphcation, but the circumstances that have led to 
them". 

Dr. Lemche had previously written a protest on the procedure introduced 
by the appHcant (I0.ii.68), but the objection was not pubHshed. 

Dr. E. Eisenmann (17.x. 69): "Before I vote on this I should like to see Dr. 
Lemche's comment in opposition (apparently not published) or at least have a 
summary of his reason for opposing". 

Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (23.xi.69): "Wiebes' lectotype designation creates a 
problem that did not previously exist. Modern authors in general seemed con- 
tent to leave Polanisa a nomen dubium. Incidentally, in paragraph 6, is the 
"BM81-107" (lectotype label) correct? If so, it means an 1881 accession. 
Would this material have been before Walker in 1871 and 1875?" 

Dr. O. Kraus (24.xi.69): "In my opinion the Commission cannot act on the 
basis of the present application, which deals with a case of subjective synonymy. 
The correct proposal should have been that preference should be given to the 
name Philotrypesis by those authors, who regard it a synonym of Polanisa". 

As there were several adverse comments on the case the pubhcation of the 
Opinion was delayed in order to answer the points raised in these comments. 
A summary of the correspondence appears below : 

Some Commissioners felt that the applicant deliberately created a problem 
for the Commission by designating a lectotype for Polanisa lutea; if that action 
had not been taken then Polanisa would have remained a nomen dubium. In 
fact a lectotype was designated because Walker's type material was found. 
Therefore, the identity of Polanisa Walker, 1875, type-species by monotypy, 
P. lutea is quite clear and no longer in obscurity. The two courses of action 
that were open were either to accept Polanisa Walker, 1875 as a senior synonym 
o[ Philotrypesis Forster, 1878, or to have Polanisa suppressed. Those previous 
authors who were acquainted with, or guessed at the identity of Polanisa 
preferred to ignore the case rather than have the name removed. 

The Register at the British Museum (Natural History) has a note to say that 
although the Elliott Collection was registered m 1881, the collection includes the 
types of the species described by Walker in 1871. Dr. Wiebes' lectotype 
designation is given in Tijdschr. Enl. 110, 1967. 

The name Polanisa was validly published by Walker, 1875 (Entomologist 
8:17) with Polanisa lutea the only species. A description was provided so that 
it is a perfectly available name as was already recognized by Patton, 1884. 
Idarnes was estabhshed by Walker, 1 843 {Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 12 : 47) with 
Idarnes carine the only species. Due to an oversight, it was not clear in the 
application that Idarnes was prior to Walker, 1871 and that transiens Walker, 
1871 was not the type-species of Idarnes. Idarnes belongs to a different tribe 
from Polanisa, and cannot be the oldest available name for Philotrypesis. 

Original Reference 
The following is the original reference for the name placed on the Official 
Index by the Ruhng given in the present Opinion: 
Polanisa Walker, 1875, Entomologist 8:17. 



26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (69)46 were cast as set out above, 
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been truly adopted under 
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the 
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1018. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
6 February 1974 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27 

HYPACANTUS RAFINESQUE, 1810 (PISCES, CARANGIDAE): 
REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

Z.N.(S.) 2058 

By Enrico Tortonese (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Via Brigata Liguria 9, 

16121 Geneva, Italy) 

1. C. S. Rafinesque Schmaltz (1810 : 43) created the name Hypacantus 
for a genus of fishes so defined: "Corpo compresso, un ala dorsale opposta 
all'ala anale, e dei raggi sciolti situati anteriormente ad ambidue". He added 
the following remarks : "Questo genere differisce dal Centronotus neiravere dei 
raggi sciolti avanti all'ala anale fra I'ano ed essa; viene formata dal Scomber 
aculeatus di Linneus, ossia il Centronotus vadigo di Lacepede". Rafinesque 
then corrected the name to Hypacantha {Analyse de la Nature, 1815 : 84). 

2. Rafinesque's definition is very rough, as many others of his. However, 
he quotes Centronotus vadigo Lacepede, that corresponds to Scomber amia 
Linnaeus. The latter can therefore be accepted as type of Hypacanthus, as 
correctly stated by Smith-Vaniz (1973 : 228). So, Hypacantus is a senior synonym 
of Lichia Cuvier, 1817 (type: Scomber amia L.). 

3. D. S. Jordan (Genera of Fishes, 1917 : 80) quoted the genus Hypacanthus 
(emended spelling) with Scomber aculeatus L. as type (Incidentally, such species 
does not occur in Linnaeus' writings). Only in 1936 — after a very long oblivion 
— the name Hypacanthus reappeared, as H. W. Fowler (Mar. Fishes W. Africa, 
2: 717) used the binomen Hypacanthus amia (L.). 

4. A. Wheeler was interested in the problem Lichia- Hypacanthus and 
published (1962 : 535) a detailed history of the case, which I have just sum- 
marized above. He preferred to keep the name Lichia, stating that ". . . to 
preserve the well known name Lichia special action will be required to suppress 
Hypacanthus" . The latter, therefore, would be a "nomen oblitum". 

5. Lichia amia is a name almost universally employed. It is found in all 
the classical books on the European fishes. It would be easy to assemble more 
than 50 references, starting from old authors as Bonaparte, Moreau, Stein- 
dachner, etc. and ending with the recent volume of CLOFNAM (Hureau and 
Monod, 1, 1973 : 377). 

6. I don't know of more than ten Hypacanthus appearances in the litera- 
ture. Furthermore, only Smith-Vaniz and Staiger (1973 : 228) used this 
name after a critical discussion of the nomenclatorial problem. All the other 
authors (H. W. Fowler, J. L. B. Smith, G. Maul, R. Dollfus, F. La Monte, 
J. R. Norman), simply put H. amia in their lists or gave short descriptions 
without comments on the proper name of the fish. I regret to say that Hypa- 
canthus amia occurs on a single paper dealing with the Mediterranean fishes, 
and that is mine (Fishes of Rhodes, 1947 : 171). But here again the name was 
just mentioned in a faunistic hst, prepared with the aid of Fowler's book, then 
supposed to be a safe guide. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

1. The name Lichia is to be preserved if stability in nomenclature is desired. 
Hypacanthus can be considered as a "nomen oblitum", in agreement with 
Wheeler's opinion. Lichia amia is a binomen currently used for about 150 
years, being applied to a common Carangid in the whole literature concerning 
the Mediterranean fishes. We must consider how annoying is the revival of old 
and long forgotten names. Such changes which are not imposed by serious 
classificatory reasons are too often regretted, not only by specialists but also, 
and even more, by general zoologists and people interested in fish and fisheries. 
The former use of Lichia for fishes now placed in different genera is not an 
obstacle to its preservation, because Clupea, Gadus, Gobius, etc. are in the same 
situation. 

Wheeler proposed the validation of Lichia. Let us go a further step and 
have Hypacanthus suppressed, as it is necessary for the said vaUdation. 

8. It is therefore requested that the International Commission on Zoo- 
logical Nomenclature: 

(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Hypacantus {Hypa- 

cantha, Hypacanthus) Rafinesque, 1810, for the purposes of the Law 
of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; 

(2) place the generic name so suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) 

above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology; 

(3) place the generic name Lichia Cuvier, 1817 (type species by subsequent 

designation by Regan, 1903: Scomber amia L.) on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology. 



References 

Albuquerque, R. M. 1954-1956. Port. Acta biol. (ser. B) 5 : 663 (L. amia) 

BiNl, G. 1968. Atlante del Pesci delle Caste italiane. Mondo Sommerso, Milano. 

vol. 5 : Perciformi : 71 (L. amia) 
CuviER, G. L. C. F. D. 1817. Le Regne Animal, Paris. Tom. 2 : 321 
De Buen, F. 1935. Notas Resum. Inst. esp. Oceanogr. (2) 89 : 104 (L. amia) 
DiEUZEiDE, R. ET AL. 1954. Bull. Sta. Aquicult. Peche Castiglione (n.s.) 5 : 230 

(L. amia) 
HuREAU, J. C. and ToRTONESE, E. 1973. Carangidae : 373-384. /«; Hureau, J. C. 

and MoNOD, Th. (Eds.) Check list of the fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and 

of the Mediterranean CLOFNAM vol. 1, Paris, UNESCO 
NOBRE, A. 1935. Fauna Marinha de Portugal 1 : Vertebrados Porto : 277 (L. amia) 
Poll, M. 1954. Res. Sci. Exped. oceanogr. belg. Eaux cot. afr. Atlant. Sud. (1948-49) 

4 (3 A) : 158(1. am/a) 
Rafinesque-Schmaltz, C. S. 1810. Cara«er/ c/c. Palermo 
Regan, C. T. 1903. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (7) 12 : 348-350 
Smith-Vaniz, W. F. and Staiger, J. C. 1973. Proc. Calif Acad. Sci. 39 No. 13 : 

185-256 
Soljan, T. 1948. Fauna et Flora Adriatica 1 Pisces, Zagreb : 152 (L. amia) 
SvETOviDOv, A. N. 1964. [The fishes of the Black Sea] Opred. Fauna SSSR 86 : 264 

(L. amia) [In Russian] 
ToRTONESE, E. 1955. Arch. Oceanogr. Limnol. 10 (3) : 191 (L. amia) 
1961. Rapp. P.-v. Reun. Commn int. Explor. sclent. Mer Mediterr. 16 (2) : 355 

(L. amia) 
Wheeler, A. 1963. /1/w. Ma?. «a/. Hwr. (13) 5 (1962) : 529-540 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29 

RE-SUBMISSION OF PAN OKEN, 1816 AND PANTHERA OKEN, 

1816 (MAMMALIA), PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE 

PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 482 

By G. B. Corbet, J. E. Hill, J. M. Ingles and P. H. Napier {British Museum 
{Natural History) Cromwell Road, London S. W.l) 

The proposal to validate the generic names Pan Oken, 1816 and Panthera 
Oken, 1816 was first submitted to the Commission in 1950 by T. C. S. Morrison- 
Scott of the British Museum (Natural History), London, and re-submitted in 
1965 ([Z.N.(S.) 482] Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 230-232) in accordance with the 
request of the Commission published in 1963 concerning cases sent in before 
1959. Later the re-submission was overlooked and because of the lapse of time 
it is now reprinted as an appendix together with subsequent comments. The 
present applicants have not emended the material which is reproduced in the 
Appendix. 

Since the last submission of this proposal in 1965, the names Pan and 
Panthera have continued to be used as the dominant names for these genera, 
both by specialists in these groups, eg. Napier & Napier (1967), Hemmer (1966) 
and by compilers, eg. Walker (1968). Likewise in entomology Pantherodes 
Guenee, 1857 continues to be used, on the assumption that Panthera Hiibner, 
1823 is preoccupied by Panthera Oken, 1816. The proposal is therefore as 
relevant now as in 1965. 

However, two small alterations need to be made to the proposal. The late 
Dr. J. C. Trevor of Cambridge pointed out a use of the specific name troglodytes 
for the chimpanzee earlier than that cited in the application of 1965 (para. 8: 
(l)a, (2)a and (4)a), and argued that it should be cited from Blumenbach, 1775 
{De generis humani varietate nativa : 37) rather than from his Handbuch der 
Naturgeschichte of 1779. In view of comments by Hershkovitz (1966) the 
relevant page references in volume 3, part 2 of Oken's Lehrbuch der Natur- 
geschichte, 1816 can be given as p. 1230 for Pan and p. 1052 for Panthera. 

The case is now re-submitted for any further comment and final decision. 



APPENDIX 

PAN OKEN, 1816, AND PANTHERA OKEN, 1816 (MAMMALIA): 
PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. 

Z.N.(S.) 482 

By T. C. S. Morrison-Scott {British Museum (Natural History), London) 

The present case is a revision of one submitted to the Commission in 1950 
in accordance with the note published by the Assistant Secretary of the Commis- 
sion in 1963 at the beginning of Volume 20, Part 2, of the Bulletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature. This note, which requested authors of cases submitted before 
1959 to revise and resubmit them, has only just come to my attention. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl.. Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

2. The two names in question were first published by Lorenz Oken in 
Volume 3 of his Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte 1816, a work rejected by the 
Commission for nomenclatorial purposes, in Opinion 417, pubhshed in 1956. 
At the same time, the International Commission invited zoologists to submit 
applications for validation under the plenary powers of any name published in 
the Lehrbuch the rejection of which would, in their opinion, lead to instability or 
confusion in the nomenclature of the group concerned. In my 1950 application I 
requested that 7 genera with their type-species should be placed on the Official 
Lists. Only Pan and Panthera are now required to be dealt with in this way, and 
for the following reasons. 

3. Pan. After earlier usages of Simla, and Anthropopithecus which still 
appears from time to time, zoologists generally have now settled down with Pan 
for chimpanzees. To introduce yet one more change, to Chimpansee Voigt, 
1831, when the Commission invites us to stabilise with Pan would hardly con- 
tribute to stability. There would be yet one more name in medical, and anthro- 
pological, etc. works and it would have to be explained by future authors that 
when they refer to Chimpansee they are really also referring to the animal called 
Pan in previous works. And if it be thought that Chimpansee is an attractive 
proposition as being self-explanatory it should be remembered that there are 
pubhshed grounds for holding that gorillas and chimpanzees should be placed 
in the same genus. If gorillas came to be called Chimpansee there could be 
some confusion in zoology, let alone amongst practical users of zoology for 
whom straightforward stability has greater appeal than the finer and more 
esoteric points of pure priority. 

4. Panthera. The usage of this name for the great cats is now well 
established and universally understood. If we do not accept the Commission's 
invitation to stabilise it the next available name seems to be Leo Brehm, 1829. 
To begin, now, to refer to tigers as Leo tigris, and leopards as Leo pardus etc. 
would seem unhelpfully to confuse matters. 

5. Prior to the publication of Opinion 417 the Oken names had been 
rejected by Cabrera, 1932, and by Hershkovitz, 1949, but G. Gaylord Simpson 
had supported the validation of Pan and Panthera in a letter to the International 
Commission dated 19 October, 1950. 

6. Pan Oken 

Stiles and Orleman, 1927, studied the problem of the nomenclature of the 
Chimpanzee in considerable detail and came to the conclusion (p. 59) that the 
correct name for the Chimpanzee was Simla satyrus L. 1758. But in 1929 this 
name was suppressed by the Commission in Opinion 114. Consequently, the 
valid name under the Rules is Chimpansee troglodytes (Blumenbach), 1779. 
Although Chimpansee Voigt, 1 83 1 , is the generic name accepted by Hershkovitz, 
1949 {J. Mammal. 30 : 296) as the valid pertinent name, he points out that the 
name Pan can be attributed to Palmer, 1904 (Index Gen. Mamm. : 508, 902) who 
cited it from Oken. 

Following the publication of Opinion 417 in 1956 it is now possible to 
conserve the name Pan as dating from Oken, 1816. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31 

7. Panthera Oken. 

According to J. A. Allen, 1902 (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 16 : 378) the 
type of Oken's genus Panthera is P. vulgaris Oken which he stated was practically 
identical with Leopardus Gray, 1867. Hershkovitz, 1949, dates Panthera from 
Palmer, 1904 {Index Gen. Mamm. : 509) who cited it from Oken pp. 1052-1066, 
and accepts Allen's 1902 type-selection as Panthera vulgaris (Sp. 7 in Oken). 
He points out that Panthera Severtzow, 1858, is preoccupied by Pantliera 
Hubner, 1823, in Insecta, Lepidoptera. This name is not now in use in Lepi- 
doptera having been regarded as a homonym of Panthera Oken and given the 
replacement name Pantherodes by Guenee in 1857. By Opinion 417, however, 
Panthera Hiibner, 1823 again becomes available. 

Therefore, in order to conserve the names Panthera in Mammalia and 
Pantherodes in Lepidoptera, it is necessary to validate Panthera Oken, 1816, 
under the plenary powers. As shown by Hershkovitz (loc. cit. p. 298) there is 
difficulty in identifying P. vulgaris Oken which Allen selected as type-species of 
Pantliera Oken. Hershkovitz concludes that this type-species must be the 
S. American Felis colocolo (Oken p. 1052). 

It is, therefore, necessary when conserving Panthera Oken, to designate a 
type-species under the plenary powers (for example Felis pardus L. 1 758). 

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested 
to take the following action : 

(1) to use its plenary powers : 

(a) to vaUdate the generic name Pan Oken, 1816, as allowed by 

Opinion 417, and to designate Simla troglodytes Blumenbach, 
1779, as the type-species; 

(b) to validate thegenericname/'a7///!eraOken, 1816,asallowedbyOp- 

inion417,andtodesignate FelispardusL. 1 758, as the type-species ; 

(2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic 

Names in Zoology : 

(a) Pan Oken, 1816 (gender : mascuhne), type-species, by designation 

under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Simla troglodytes 
Blumenbach, 1779 (The Chimpanzee); 

(b) Pa«r/iera Oken, 1816 (gender : feminine), type-species by designa- 

tion under the plenary powers (1) (b) above, Felis pardus 
Linnaeus, 1758 (The Leopard); 

(3) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected 

and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : 

(a) Theranthropus Brookes, 1828, Cat. Anat. Zool. Mus. : 28. 

(b) Chimpansee Voigt, 1831, Cuvier's Das Thierreich 1 : 76. 

(c) Anthropopithecus Blainville, 1838, Ann. Franc, et Etr. Anat. Phys 

II : 360, 
as junior objective synonyms of Pan Oken, 1816; 

(d) Panthera Hubner, 1823, Zutr. Exot. Schmett. II : 25, (a junior 

homonym of Panthera Oken, 1816). 



32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

(4) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology: 

(a) troglodytes Blumenbach, 1 779, as published in the binomen Simla 

troglodytes (type-species of Pan Oken, 1816); 

(b) pardus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Felis pardus 

(type-species of Panthera Oken, 1816). 

References 
Allen, J A. 1902. Bull. Amer. Mas. nat. Hist. 16 : 378 
Blainville, H. D. de. 1838. Ann. Fran(. et Eir. Anat. Phys. II : 360 
Blumenbach, J. F. 1779. Handb. Naliirgesch : 65 
Brookes, J. 1828. Cat. Anal. Zool. Mus. : 28 

Cabrera, A. 1932. Trab. Miis. Cienc. Nat. Madrid, zool. ser. No. 17 : 106 
Hershkovitz, p. 1949. J. Mammal. 30, No. 3 : 289-307 
HiJBNER. 1823. Zutr Samml. exot. Schmett. II : 25 
LiNNEAUS, C. 1758. Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 41 
Palmer, J. S. 1904. Index Gen. Mamm. : 509 
Severtzow, N. 1853. Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 10 : 385 
Stiles, C. W., & Orleman, M. B. 1927. Hyg. Lab. Bull., U.S. Public Health Service, 

No. 145 : 1-66 
VoiGT, F. S. 1831. Cuvier's Das Thierreich 1 : 76 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 4. November 1965 : 230-232 



COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION OF PAN OKEN, 

1816, AND PANTHERA OKEN, 1816 

(see volume 22, pages 230-232) 

By Philip Hershkovitz (Field Museum of Natural History, 
Chicago, Illinois) 

Morrison-Scott (B.Z.N. 22 : 230, 1965) requests conservation of the "generic" 
names Panthera and Pan from Oken's Lehrbiich der Naturgeschichte, published 1816. 
In 1956, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature rejected, in 
Opinion 417, the Lehrbuch for purposes of zoological nomenclature. I have shown 
elsewhere (1949, Journ. Mammal., 30 : 289-301) that there is no need to revert to this 
non-binomial work for any zoological name. Nearly all generic names for mammals 
ostensibly cited from Oken's Lehrbuch are available in well known and nomenclaturally 
valid publications. Two or three "Oken" names still current but with availability 
from binomial works clouded by questions of homonymy or priority may give concern 
to some zoologists. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature can, 
by use of its plenary powers, validate such names from any nomenclaturally recognized 
source. Nevertheless, action should not be taken in cases where non-Oken names are 
available under the Code and in use without entailing confusion in concepts or up- 
heavals in nomenclature. 

Zoologists who publish taxonomic revisions, check lists, or catalogs of animals, 
assume full responsibility for each bibliographic reference they cite and for the taxo- 
nomic status and availability of each name they recognize. Authors such as G. M. 
Allen (1939, A check list of African mammals), G. G. Simpson (1945, The principles 
of classification and a classification of mammals), and J. R. Ellerman and T. C. S. 
Morrison-Scott (1951, Checklist of Palaearcticand Indian mammals, 1758 to 1946) who 
gleaned names from Palmer (1904, Index generum mammallum) but cited them as if 
copied directly from Oken, 1816, are representing bad names for good and imprecise or 
non-existent bibliographic references for original and valid sources. It is ironical that 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33 

zoologists who scorned the rules of nomenclature now apply to the International 
Commission on Nomenclature for conservation of counterfeit names they favored and 
rejection of the appropriate and currently used bonafide names they disfavor. 

"Panthera Oken, 1816" 

fn his proposal, Morrison-Scott states that conservation of Panthera for great cats 
requires validation of the name from Oken, 1816. He adds that inasmuch as Felis 
colocolo, the ascribed type of "Panthera Oken" is not a great cat, it is necessary to 
designate another type, namely Felis pardus Linnaeus. 

Oken's Lehrbiich contains no generic name Panthera as used and understood by 
modern authors. Felis pardus, as employed by Oken, has nothing to do with his 
"Panthera" and is not unequivocably the Linnaean Felis pardus. Morrison-Scott 
gives no bibliographic reference to his fancied "Panthera Oken, 1816", and he cannot 
because there is none. In short, Morrison-Scott requests validation of a name from a 
work rejected for purposes of zoological nomenclature, cited from an author who never 
proposed the name in the form or sense currently used or recognized by Morrison- 
Scott, and with the type species pulled out of a hat. 

Procedure, technicalities, legalities and proprieties to one side, the claim that there is 
need for conserving Panthera as of Oken, Morrison-Scott, or anyone else, does not 
bear scrutiny. 

The most widely used name for great cats is Felis Linnaeus. This is the generic 
name applied to all North American cats, except lynxes, by Hall and Kelson (1959) in 
"The mammals of North America." These authors treat "Panthera" of Frisch and 
Oken as "unavailable". Cabrera (1958 : 298) in his authoritative "Catalogo de los 
mamiferos de America del Sur", employes Leo Brehm 1829 (Oken's Isis, p. 637) as the 
generic name for great cats. In his posthumous monograph of Argentine cats, 
Cabrera (1962 : 162) categorically denies recognition to names proposed in works 
officially rejected for purposes of zoological nomenclature irrespective of the facade of 
legality they may subsequently receive. In my manuscript catalog of South American 
mammals, Felis is the generic name used for most species of cats including the jaguar. 
There is no intention or thought of recognizing "Panthera" under any guise. 

Wide usage of Panthera for great cats stems from Pocock (1916, Ann. Mag. Nat. 
Hist., (8), 18 : 314). This authority believed that "since the tendency of modern 
systematic mammalogy has found in the present instance expression in the admission of 
many [!] species of leopard, lion, jaguar and tiger, it is possible, perhaps probable, that 
the logical outcome of that process — namely, the ascription of generic rank to each of 
these animals — will be followed in the future. If that be so, nominal symbols are 
available for them." With these remarks, Pocock {loc. cit.) listed the following generic 
names for great cats. 

Panthera Oken, ex Allen, 1902 (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 16 : 377), for the 
leopard. 

Tigris Oken, ex Palmer, 1 904 {Index generum mammalium, N.A.F., 23 : 509), for the 
tiger. 

Leo Oken, ex Palmer, 1904 (op. cit., p. 368), for the lion. 

Uncia Gray, 1854 {Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (2), 14 : 394), for the ounce. 

Jaguarius Severtzow, 1858 {Rev. Mag. Zool. (2), 10 : 386), for the jaguar. 

Recognition of five genera of great cats persuaded Pocock to raise the group to 
subfamily rank, the Pantherinae, primarily on the basis of a character of the hyoid 
apparatus which now proves to be even more tenuous than has been generally supposed. 
Other characters adduced for generic separation of great cats from small as typified by 
Felis catus Linnaeus, have not withstood critical review. Validation of Panthera as the 
obligate generic name for great cats is neither indicated nor in the best interest of tax- 
onomy or nomenclature. 

It is urged that Morrison-Scott's application for conservation of "Panthera Oken, 
1816", be rejected. The reasons are summarized as follows. 

1. "Panthera Oken, 1816" is an undigestible artifice. Current usage of the name 
stems from Allen, 1902 {supra cit.) and Palmer, 1904 {supra cit.). 



34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

2. The most commonly used generic name for great cats is Felis Linnaeus. 

3. There is no strong evidence that great cats typified by the leopard, Felis pardus 

Linnaeus, are generically distinct from small cats typified by Felis catus 
Linnaeus. Generic or subgeneric distinction between the two groups is, 
however, recognized by some authorities (not merely authors or compilers). 
Generic names, other than "Panthera", for separating them are available 
and in use. 

4. The earliest available generic (or subgeneric) name for great cats is Leo Brehm, 

1829 {supra cil.), type Felis lea Linnaeus. Current and spreading usage of 
this valid and uncontroversial name promotes stability, meets with no serious 
objections and results in no confusion. 

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should not validate 

a rejected name for which there is no need from a non-binomial work which 
most zoologists cannot or will not in clear conscience accept on zoological or 
nomenclatural grounds. 
In conclusion, it is requested that the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature 

(1) place the name "Panthera Oken", cited by authors, on the Official List of 

Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; 

(2) place the generic name Leo Brehm, 1829 (Oken's Isis, p. 637), on the Official 

List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

"Pan Oken, 1816" 

Scientific names of primates are used by a very small number of zoologists. Few 
anthropologists, primatologists, zookeepers, behaviorists, biomedical and biochemical 
investigators and others using non-human primates in research or for display, are 
zoologists. Hardly any of them are taxonomists. Scientific names of animals mean 
little to them. The rules of nomenclature mean even less. There is an urgent need to 
convince non-zoologists and non-taxonomists of the importance of taxonomic dis- 
criminations and the use of correct scientific names for experimental and display 
animals. This task becomes particularly difficult and complicated if workers are asked 
to use technical names which are not valid according to our Code and which have been 
declared unavailable by special ruling of our Commission. 

The name "Pan Oken, 1816", for the chimpanzee, has not been universally 
adopted. It is or would be rejected by the vast majority of zoologists familiar with the 
rules of nomenclature and the history of Oken's Lehrbuch. As noted, most of those 
who work with chimpanzees are not accustomed to use scientific names for animals. 
They may be more familiar with the pipes of Pan than with the Pan of Oken. This 
makes it all the more urgent to arouse the nomenclatural consciousness of those who 
use chimpanzees in research with the valid and convincing generic name, Chimpansee 
Voigt. 

Morrison-Scott's belief that the change from Pan to Chimpansee after earlier 
usage of Pan, Simla and Anthropopithecus "hardly contributes to stability", is not 
supported by history. 

Nomenclatural changes have consistently moved toward stability by rejection of the 
invalid for the valid. The history of such names as Callithrix Erxleben, 1777, versus 
Hapale Uliger, 1811, and Sagninus Hoffmannsegg, 1807, versus Leontocebus Wagner, 
1840, Marikina Lesson, 1840, Tamarin Gray, 1870 and others, prove the point. The 
many "Oken names" widely used during a 20-30 year span have all but disappeared 
from recent literature. The attempt to salvage Pan (and Panthera) seems to be a 
belated and gratuitous rearguard action. 

The contention that confusion would ensue should gorillas and chimpanzees be 
combined generically is baseless. I doubt the premise but here are the alternatives. 

Pan gorilla 

Pan troglodytes 
versus 

Chimpansee gorilla 

Chimpansee troglodytes 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35 

I submit that the true identity of either chimpanzee or gorilla is less likely to be 
confused under the generic name Chimpansee than under that of Pan. 

"Pan" gained currency through Elliott's despairingly erratic, "A review of the 
Primates (1913, p. 227)'". Elliott's source for the name was, of course. Palmer (1904, 
Index generum mammalium, p. 508). Very little survives of Elliott's contributions to 
primatology and there is no good reason for clinging to his usage of "Pan Oken". 

In conclusion, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is 
requested to 

(1) reject Morrison-Scott's application for conservation of "Pan Oken". 

(2) place the name "Pan Oken", cited by authors, and the sales catlog name 

Theranthropiis Brookes, 1828 (A catalogue of the anatomical and zoological 
museum of Joshua Brookes, Esq., F.R.S., F.L.S., etc., p. 48), on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) place the generic name Chimpansee Voigt, 1831 (Cuvier's Das Thierreich, 1 : 76) 

type, Simla troglodytes Blumenbach, by monotypy, on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology. 

By Fernando Dias de Avila-Pires (Miiseii Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil) 

I would like to comment on the proposed validation of the generic names Pan 
Oken, 1816, and Panlliera Oken, 1816. 

I do not think that considering one work non-nomenclatorial but validating a 
number of names published in it would contribute at all to make nomenclature stable. 
Theoretically we could have one book in the "index" as non-valid, but with the 
majority or the totality of its names validated. 

In the present case I very much regret to disagree with T. C. Morrisson-Scott, on 
the following grounds. 

1 . Pan undoubtedly is a "well stabilized" name for the chimpanzees. In case we 
accept the correct generic name Cliimpansee Voigt, 1831, it certainly will be confusing 
for non-taxonomists to call a gorilla, Cliimpansee, once they are accepted as co-generic. 
But it would also be confusing to call scientifically a gorilla, Pan, once it is a "well 
stabilized" name for the chimpanzees ... In fact what is confusing and strange — to 
non-primatologists — is not the nomenclatorial problem, but the discovery that gorillas 
and chimpanzees are so closely related. // the name Gorilla was older than Pan or 
Chimpansee, it would also be confusing to call a chimpanzee. Gorilla. 

2. With the names Panthera Oken, 1816, and Leo Brehm, 1829 the same problem 
arises. Lions, jaguars, tigers and leopards (or panthers), all belong to the same genus. 
But when you use a new combination for the first time, then you realize how closely 
related these animals are considered to be. To call a panther Leo is no more confusing 
than to call a lion, Panthera. 

Altogether, there is some argument about the type-species of Panthera Oken, which 
Hershkovitz holds to be the South American Fells colocoto, once Allen selected 
Panthera vulgaris Oken as the type-species. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966 : 67-70 



COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL FOR THE CONSERVATION OF 

PANTHERA AND PAN. Z.N.fS.) 482 
(see volume 22, pages 230-232) 

By E. Tortonese {Museum of Natural History, Genoa, Italy) 

When I read Morrison-Scott's proposal for the conservation of the names Pan and 
Panthera, I sent a few words of support, as it seemed advisable to keep such names, 
now widely employed by both mammalogists and non-mammalogists. 

Now, I am rather impressed by comments sent by P. Hershkovitz and by F. Dias 
de Avila-Pires (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 (2/3) : 67-69). It appears that we must first 



36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

consider not a nomenclatorial problem, but a strictly taxonomic one: are large and 
small cats congeneric or not ? are chimpanzee and gorilla congeneric or not ? 

It is often said that the taxonomy of mammals is now well established and that 
only the smaller forms require further work. It is therefore surprising that we don't 
know the proper scientific name of the lion, or the chimpanzee; as a matter of fact a 
museum curator or director is still uncertain (1966!) about the labelling of the speci- 
mens, and the present examples are not alone. 

Therefore, I consider the opportunity of discussing a nomenclatorial question a 
doubtful one when the corresponding taxonomic question has not been solved. 

May I add that, as far as large mammals are concerned, the solution of similar 
problems is particularly desirable. The present case involves such "well-known" 
animals that a final agreement on their taxonomy can reasonably be expected. Of 
course, this is a matter for the mammalogists and not for the Commission. The latter 
can consider later what generic names are to be used, if this remains uncertain. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 1. March 1967 : 3 



COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION OF PAN FROM OKEN, 

1816. Z.N.(S.) 482 
(see volume 22, pages 230-232, volume 23, pages 67-70) 

By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 
Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) 

I strongly support the application of Morrison-Scott to preserve the name Pan 
Oken, 1816. As early as 1914 this name has been called a "Code name" in Opinions 
of the Commission. It is the name almost universally used since that time either for 
the champanzee or for the African apes. To say, as Hershkovitz does, that there is 
no need for stability of scientific names in this area because "few anthropologists, 
primatologists, zookeepers, behaviourists, biomedical and biochemical investigators 
and others using non-human primates in research . . ., are zoologists" is an argument 
the force of which I fail to comprehend. All these people have been using the name 
Pan for the last couple of generations and there is no conceivable advantage in changing 
it at this late date. Furthermore, as correctly pointed out by Morrison-Scott, there 
is a strong trend to place both chimpanzee and gorilla in the same genus and the 
neutral name Pan is certainly more suitable for this polytypic genus than the name 
Chimpanzee. Few scientific names have been as stable as has been the name Pan 
over the last 50 years and to change it would expose taxonomy to precisely the kind 
of reproaches of irresponsibility and failure to understand the information retrieval 
significance of nomenclature which the more responsible taxonomists have been 
trying to refute. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 2. April 1967 : 66 



PANTHERA OKEN, 1816 (MAMMALIA, CARNIVORA); FURTHER 

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION AND RENEWED 

APPLICATION. Z.N.(S.) 482 

(see vol. 22, pages 230-232, vol. 23, pages 67-70, vol. 24, page 3) 

By Helmut Hemmer {Institut fUr physiologische Zoologie, 
University of Mainz, Germany) 

Concerning the Morrison-Scott's {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 ; 230-232, 1965) request 
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature "to validate the generic 
name Panthera Oken, 1816, as allowed by Opinion 417, and to designate Fells pardus 
L. 1758, as the type-species", there were published in this journal unfavourable 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37 

comments by Hershkovitz and Dias de Avila-Pires and a consent by Tortonese. 
In the interest of defending zoological nomenclature against confusion it seems highly 
necessary to discuss these comments. 

The first mention of the name Panthera without any following specific name and 
therefore not clearly marked as a generic name may be found in Oken's "Lehrbuch 
der Natiiregschichte. 3 Theil, Zoologie, 2. Abth., Fleischthiere, Leipzig 1816" on 
page 1052 for Felis colocolo. Abbreviated to P. one finds this name further on as 
P. paragayensis (p. 1052) and P. mexicana (p. 1054). Hence Hershkovitz is surely 
right concerning the first mention of Felis colocolo, the hitherto ascribed type of 
Panthera Oken, in saying this is "no generic name Panthera as used and understood 
by modern authors". With regard to this the unabbreviated name Panthera with 
clear generic meaning followed by a specific name may be found in the "Lehrbuch" 
as Panthera americana (p. 1054) for the ocelot. Following this Oken used Panthera 
again in abbreviation among others for the leopard (p. 1057: "6. Art P. varia, F. 
Leopardus" for the Panthera pardus leopardus and Panthera pardus panthera (partim); 
p. 1058: "7. Art. P. vulgaris, Panthera, F. Pardus" for the african leopard, especially 
the Panthera pardus pardus from Egypt). Therefore Hershkovitz seems to be wrong 
in writing "Felis pardus. as employed by Oken, has nothing to do with his "Panthera" 
and is not unequivocably the Linnean Felis pardus" . According to Article 69 of the 
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature there is no reason why Felis pardus L. 
should not be designated as type-species of Panthera Oken as requested by Morrison- 
Scott, for Felis pardus L. obviously has been included by Oken as one species among 
others in his genus Panthera. Article 1 of Hershkovitz's summary: "Panthera Oken, 
1816 is an undigestible artifice" has to be rejected. 

Hershkovitz states that "the most widely used name for great cats is Felis Lin- 
naeus". He cites as a proof for this view only three published faunal catalogues 
for North and South America and his own manuscript catalogue of South American 
mammals. Except in the monograph of Cabrera (Los Felidos vi vientes de la Republica 
Argentina. Revista del Mus. Argent, de Cienc. Nat. "Bernardino Rivadavia" e Inst. 
Nac. de Invest, de la Cienc. Nat., 6 (5), Buenos Aires 1961) of Argentine cats using 
Leo instead of Felis (!) for the great cats, there is no special paper on the classification 
of the Felidae in his list. Out of the great number of papers on this matter written 
by Pocock and using the name Panthera Hershkovitz cites only one of the earliest 
from 1916 recognizing five different genera of great cats. It seems that he has over- 
looked all following papers of the same author summarizing lion, tiger, leopard and 
jaguar under the generic name Panthera. Since Pocock's work on "The Classification 
of existing Felidae" {Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 20 (119) : 329-350, 1917) giving subfamily 
rank to the Panthera-group there are exactly 50 years now in which the name Panthera 
Oken was widely used not only in special taxonomic papers as given by Haltenorth 
(Die verwandtschaftliche Stellung der Grosskatzen zueinander I and II (Z.f. Sduge- 
tierke. 11 : 32-105 and 12 : 97-240, 1936 and 1937), Zarapkin (zur Frage der 
verwandtschaftlichen Stellung der Grosskatzen zueinander. Z.f. Saugetierkde. 
14 : 220-224, 1939), Leyhausen (Beobachtungen an Lowen-Tiger-Bastarden mit 
einigen Bermerkungen zur Systematik der Grosskatzen. Z.f. Tierpsych. 7 : 46-83, 
1950), or Wiegel (Das Fellmuster de wildlebenden Katzenarten und der Hauskatze 
in vergleichender und stammesgeschichtlicher Hinsicht. Sdugetierliundt. Mitt. 9, 
Sonderheft, 1961), or in the fundamental Simpson's classification of mammals (The 
Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals. Bull. Amer. Mus. 
Nat. Hist., 83 : 1-350, 1945), but also in most of the general mammalogical and non- 
mammalogical literature and textbooks, as already stated by Tortonese (cited above). 
Therefore, article 2 of Hershkovitz's summary: "The most commonly used generic 
name for great cats is Felis Linnaeus" for want of any good foundation has to be 
rejected too. 

Subfamily rank was given to the Panthera-group by Pocock primarily on the basis 
of a character of the hyoid apparatus as Hershkovitz correctly states. But Hersh- 
kovtiz quotes no published new investigation concerning this feature in assuming that 
this character "now proves to be even more tenuous than has been generally sup- 



38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

posed". Further on he is simply wrong saying: "Other characters adduced for 
generic separation of great cats from small as typified by Felis catus Linnaeus, have 
not withstood critical review." 

As I have shown elsewhere in detail (Hemmer, H. : Untersuchungen zur Stammes- 
geschichte der Pantherkatzen (Pantherinae). Part 1. Veroffentl. d. Zool. Staats- 
sammlimg Miinchen 11 : 1-121, 1966) the four species lion, leopard, jaguar and tiger 
belonging to one another differ morphologically as well as behaviourally from all 
other genera or species groups of cats to a very much greater extent than do these 
groupsbetween themselves, except the cheetah (.4ci/ioHyj:yH6a//«). Beside the character 
of the hyoidean apparatus Pocock (On the external characters of the Felidae. Ann. 
Mag. Nat. Hist. 19 : 109, 1917) has already described two more differences between 
Pantherinae and Felinae concerning the rhinarium and the claw-sheaths. Sonntag 
(The Comparative anatomy of the tongue of the Mammalia. VIII. Carnivora. 
Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1923) showed a further characteristic feature in the mor- 
phology of the tongue. Leyhausen (Verhaltenstudien an Katzen, 1956, and: Uber 
die unterschiedliche Entwicklung einiger Verbal tensweisen bei den Feliden. Saugetier 
kundt. Mitt., 4 : 123-125, 1956) has published some behavioural differences (voice, 
eating attitude, tearing action, care of the fur). The ounce (Uncia uncia) differs 
enough from the taxonomically clearly defined genus Panthera to be given its own 
generic rank but phylogenetically related to the base of it. Therefore the taxonomic 
connection of these two genera may only be expressed by a higher taxonomic category 
than the generic one. The subdivision of the Felidae into the three subfamilies 
Pantherinae, Felinae and Acinonychinae seems to be fully justified (see Hemmer, 
I.e., especially pages 17-18). For the Pantherinae there may be given the following 
diagnosis: 

Suspensorium of the hyoid imperfectly ossified, its interior portion consisting of a 
larger or shorter elastic tendon. Naked area of the rhinarium not, or at most with a 
very narrow area, reaching to the dorsal side of the nose; rhinarium itself tolerably 
flat, the median area narrow without definite lateral infranarial extension. Claw 
sheaths well developed, both upon the outer and the inner side of the claw. Spinous 
patch of the tongue begins close to apex of tongue, and is restricted to the anterior 
part of the dorsum. In the pattern of the head and neck nowhere continuous longi- 
tudinal stripes but spots only. Pupil of the eye at normal light round or nearly round. 
Use of "tearing action" at eating. Care of the fur, especially concerning the face, 
not very thorough. Tail generally stretched out Ijackwards in sitting or resting 
attitude. 

These explanations may show that article 3 of Hershkovitz's summary: "There is 
no strong evidence that great cats typified by the leopard, Felis pardiis Linnaeus, 
are generically distinct from small cats typified by Felis cams Linnaeus" has also to 
be rejected. 

In his article 4, Hershkovitz speaks of a "current and spreading usage" of the 
name Leo Brehm for great cats which "promotes stability, meets with no serious 
objections and results in no confusion". I can see no proof for this view of current 
and spreading usage of Leo. Placing the name Leo Brehm on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology in place of Panthera Oken would contradict the stability 
of nomenclature and result in the greatest confusion. Such an unnecessary change 
in the name of one of the widely known genera of animals would be beyond every 
reasonable regulation of nomenclature. In requesting the International Commission 
of Zoological Nomenclature to place the name Panthera Oken on the Official List of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and asserting that there would be no 
need for this name, as he has done in his article 5, Hershkovitz himself calls for such 
confusion. 

Dias de Avila-Pires (cited above) also disagrees with Morrison-Scott. But his 
real problem in doing so is not a nomenclatorial one but a problem of language. 
His statement: "To call a panther Leo is no more confusing than to call a lion 
Panthera" seems to be a very unrealistic argument for rejecting a well established name 
in favour of another one which would be in no way better according to his own view. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39 

In connection with this proposed preservation of Paitlhera 01<en there is another 
problem. 1 have shown (Hemmer, I.e.) that the genus Panthera has to be subdivided 
into the two subgenera Panthera for lion, leopard and jaguar and Tigris for the tiger. 
The first mention of Tigris with generic meaning likewise dates from Oken, 1816, the 
second from Gray, 1 862. As I have no firm intention of applying for a third name 
of Oken's to be validated, the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature 
may decide which of these two names should be valid. 

In conclusion, I support and renew Morrison-Scott's application for conservation 
of "Panliiera Oken, 1816" and request a decision on the author of the subgeneric 
name Tigris. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested 
to take the following action: 

to use its plenary powers: 

(1) to validate the generic name Pantliera Oken, 1816, as followed by Opinion 417, 

and to designate Felis pardus L., 1758, as the type-species; 

(2) to decide on the subgeneric name Tigris between the authors Oken, 1816, and 

Gray, 1862. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967 : 259-261 



REPLY TO MAYR'S COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION OF 
PAN FROM OKEN, 1816. Z.N.(S.) 482 

By Philip Hershkovitz (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) 

In his comment on preservation of Pan Oken, 1816, Professor Mayr (Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 24 (2) : 66) declares, "to say as Hershkovitz does, that there is no need for 
stability for scientific names in this area because," — then he goes on with a direct 
quotation from Hershkovitz (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 (2/3) : 68), italics mine — " few 
anthropologists, primatologists, zookeepers, behaviorists, biomedical investigators and 
others using non-human primates in research . . ., are zoologists" is an argument the 
force of which I fail to understand." 

In his statement, Mayr first attributes to me a conclusion of his own device and 
which is entirely alien to anything I said or implied. He then couples it with names 
of scientific professions I listed in a context diametrically opposed to his peculiar 
interpretation. 

My original remarks, which Mayr obviously failed to understand, are clear and 
unequivocal exhortations to all who work with animals to seek stability of scientific 
names in harmony with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and 
Opinions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 

Pan, cited from "Oken, 1816" (Lehrbiich Naturgeschichte . . ., usually without 
definite page reference) is invalid because the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature rejected Oken's Lehrbuch for nomenclatorial purposes (Opinion 417, 
1956). It has been shown that Chimpansee Voigt, 1831, is the oldest available name 
for the chimpanzee. 

As explained in my comments, most users oi Pan Oken, are not concerned or even 
aware of the status of the name. The vast majority tend to accept zoological names 
in good faith from secondary sources. 

To my knowledge, no author of any taxonomic list or classification which includes 
Pan, and no proponent of the preservation of Pan, credit this generic name to a proper 
source or propose that it be preserved from a binomial author, and thus placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

Perhaps Mayr, Morrison-Scott, and others favouring preservation of Pan from 
Oken, 1816, are more concerned with the validation of Oken's Lehrbuch than with a 
valid name for the chimpanzee. Surely, most opposition to the use of Pan would 
dissolve were this name cited from its first correct usuage for the chimpanzee, for 



40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

example Palmer, 1904 (Gen. Mamm. : 508) and not from a zoologically dubious base 
and a nomenclatorially unacceptable work. 

Bull. zool. NomcncL, Vol. 24, Part 5. December 1967 : 261-262 



A COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION OF THE GENERIC 

NAME PANTHERA OKEN, 1816 (MAMMALIA, CARNIVORA). Z.N.(S.) 482 
(see volume 22, pages 230-232; vol. 23, pages 67-70; vol. 24, pages 3, 259-261) 

By Vratislav Mazak {Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 9\-Brunoy, France and 
Institute of Systematic Zoology, Charles University, Prague, Czechoslovakia) 

Since Morrison-Scott's (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 230-232, 1965) request to validate 
the generic name Panthera Oken, 1816, several comments concerning this question 
have been published in this journal (vol. 23 : 67-70, vol. 24 : 3 and 259-261). 

Technical problems connected with the name Panthera Oken, 1816 were discussed 
in detail by Hemmer (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 259-260, 1967). I agree completely 
with Hemmer's opinion and conclusions as far as the question of the name Panthera 
is concerned. I would only like to mention some additional facts and some more 
general aspects concerning the problem. 

There certainly is no doubt that Hershkovitz's statement (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
23, 1966) that "the most commonly used generic name for great cats is Felis Linnaeus" 
has to be rejected. In the course of the last decades the generic name Panthera has 
been undoubtedly applied to big cats much more frequently than the name Felis. 
The status of the name Panthera Oken, 1816, has already been discussed by Ognev 
(Zveri SSSR i prilezhashchikh stran, Moscow-Leningrad, vol. iii, pp. 237-238, 1935; 
see also Mammals of U.S.S.R. and .Adjacent Countries, vol. 3, Jerusalem, 1962) who 
did not finally accept the name. The arguments of this Russian author are principally 
the same as those of Hershkovitz (I.e.), i.e. that the type-species of the genus in question 
is Felis colocolo. Herruner (I.e.) mentions, however, all the reasons showing that 
the name Panthera may be, in fact, accepted without being at variance with the Inter- 
national Code of Zoological Nomenclature. It is interesting to mention that the 
generic name Panthera has later on been used by Ognev himself as well as by his 
disciples; e.g. Stroganov in his excellent monograph on the Siberian Carnivora (Zveri 
Sibiri. Khishchnye. [Mammals of Siberia. Carnivora.] Moscow, 1962). 

Generally a somewhat different concept of genus accepted by American authors 
on the one hand and by European authors on the other hand can explain another 
statement by Hershkovitz saying that "there is no strong evidence that great cats . . . 
are generically distinct from small cats . . .". As commonly known the American 
mammalogists incline to be more or less "lumpers'", the European mammalogists 
"splitters". This question, however important it is, has none the less absolutely 
nothing to do with the problems of nomenclature and its stability. 

Hemmer (I.e., p. 260) summarizes quite a gamut of different characteristics which 
separate the group of so-called big cats (Pantherinae) from all other cats. To the 
morphological characteristics of the subfamily Pantherinae given by Hemmer, I would 
like to add that Ognev (I.e., pp. 111-112) mentions a difference in the projection of 
the anterior processus of the jugal bone. As the characteristic given by Ognev was 
established on the basis of materials of those species of cats which inhabit the territory 
of the Soviet Union, I have tried to verify it in other forms of the Felidae and I can, 
in this place, state that the characteristic in question does not seem to be of general 
validity. Nevertheless, another characteristic, briefly recently described (V. Mazak, 
Note sur les caracteres craniens de la sous-famille des Pantherinae [Carnivora, Felidae]. 
Mammalia, 32 (in print) 1968), was found. In big cats the most anterior part of the 
zygomatic arch, laterally from the foramen infraorbitale, does not generally exceed the 
level of the foramen infraorbitale itself, whilst in small cats it generally reaches beyond 
the level of infraorbital foramen in the oral direction. It should be said, however, 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41 

that in the Cheetah {Acinoiiyx jubatus) the shape of the anterior part of the zygomatic 
arch is more or less similar to that found in big cats. I think it is not necessary to 
mention that many other various features separate the Cheetah from big cats as well 
as from other cats. 

As to the different features of behaviour given by Hammer (I.e.) I can emphasize 
that all of them are fully justified. Indubitably we must not over-estimate the taxo- 
nomic importance of behavioural characteristics and criteria as they are influenced 
by evolutionary phenomena to the same extent (though perhaps in somewhat different 
ways) as all other characteristics and criteria used by modern taxonomy and systematics. 
In the case of the family Felidae both behavioural and morphological characteristics, 
however more or less pronounced they are, fit none the less together. 

The Puma and the Leopard seem to be the best example as both of them are of 
about the same size. All the morphological characteristics listed by Hemmer as well 
as the cranial one mentioned above separate these two cats. In addition, all the 
basic behavioural features of the Puma are absolutely identical with those of small 
cats and all the principal features of behaviour in the Leopard are identical with those 
of all other big cats. 

The group of big cats cover five species: the Leopard, the Jaguar, the Tiger, the 
Lion, and the Snow Leopard or Ounce. All of these species show every single one 
of the common characteristics summarized by Hemmer (I.e.) as well as a common 
skull feature given above. The Ounce presents, nevertheless, additional differences 
(especially cranial : general shape of skull, broad and short nasals, different form of 
bullae, different shape of occiput etc.) which are so distinct that an independent generic 
rank has to be applied for this member of the group. 

I have repeated these known data in order to point out again the fact that all the 
species of recent Felidae can be divided into some groups on the basis of series of both 
morphological and behavioural differences, and to accent the other fact, viz. that 
within each of these groups we can find forms which are distinct enough to represent 
different genera in the framework of the respective group. Three or four subfamilies 
(Felinae Trouessart, 1885; Lyncinae Gray, 1867; Pantherinae Pocock, 1917 and 
Acinonychinae Pocock, 1917; Lyncinae being none the less generally included into 
Felinae) might thus indicate evolutionary lines and phyletic interrelations among 
living Felidae. Several forms of recent cats show of course, a problematic taxonomic 
status and a very misty phylogenetical position. From this point of view the position 
of the Clouded Leopard, Neofelis nebiilosa, that in my opinion cannot certainly be 
held to be a member of Pantherinae, might turn out to be of the greatest interest. 

Zoological nomenclature serves the end of zoological classification and a modern 
classification should reflect phylogeny, and developmental evolution, on the different 
levels of taxa. Morphological differences, of which cranial and skeletal ones are the 
most important, still represent the basis for such a classification in Mammals. There 
is no doubt that there are no fundamental differences in the general plan of skull 
structure in living Felidae. We cannot here go deep into the details of the problem 
of evolution and its ways, and there is no need to do so in order to show that even the 
greatest morphological similarities are in no contradiction with quite different origins 
of the forms in question. The findings of fossil cats show more and more the diffi- 
culties we are facing, when trying to study interrelationship of different forms of the 
Felidae. The palaeontological evidence also seems to suggest that main groups of 
cats could be less related among themselves than generally believed. Hence, it 
appears we should finally admit the justification of different genera and subfamilies 
in the living Felidae. 

I would like to emphasize again that all the problems mentioned above have directly 
nothing to do with the problems of nomenclature. All the discussion which has gone 
on in this journal has only shown that the questions of interrelationships in the family 
Felidae are not clear. All this discussion has also shown the different opinions of 
various students and that can only be another reason that the generic name PaiUhera 
Oken, 1816 should be validated. A different opinion needs admittedly to be expressed 
in a formally correct way, if for nothing else than in the interest of defending zoological 



42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

nomenclature against confusion and in the interest of its stability. In my opinion 
the preservation of the generic name Pantliera would be in the full accordance with 
these interests. 

In conclusion, I would like to subjoin and to support Morrison-Scotfs and 
Hemmer's application for conservation of the generic name Panthera Oken, 1816. 

Bull, zool Nomencl., Vol. 25, Parts 2/3. September 1968 : 66-67 



FURTHER COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF 

PANTHERA OKEN, 1816 (MAMMALIA, CARNIVORA). Z.N.(S.) 482 

(see volume 22, pages 230-232, volume 23, pages 67-70, volume 24, page 3 

and pages 259-261, volume 25, pages 66-67) 

By Paul Leyhausen (Max-Planck-Institut fiir Verlialtensphysiologie, Abteilimg Lorenz, 
Arbeitsgruppe Wuppertal, Germany) 

With reference to Morrison-Scott's request (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 230-232, 
1965) to validate the generic name of Panthera Oken, 1816, and to the subsequent 
remarks by Hershkovitz, de Avila-Pires, Tortonese and Hemmer, I wish to give full 
support to Morrison-Scott's motion and the comments made by Hemmer. I should 
particularly like to emphasise that no researcher whose special work has been devoted 
to the large cats in the last 50 years has used Leo or any other generic name for them, 
and that — for want of something better — the "Classification of existing Felidae" is 
still best served by following Pocock (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 1917). Cabrera, to me, 
is a very dubious authority, as he has written a catalogue but apart from that knew 
little about cats. 

Although I must admit to some sympathy with Hershkovitz's philological and 
nomenclatorial pangs of conscience, I also feel that the purpose of nomenclature can 
only be to serve zoology, not harness it to a Procrustean bed. There is no room for 
a nomenclature as Part pour I'art. Abandoning Panthera for whatever other name it 
might be would only create new confusion after all those actually working on these 
animals have adopted it. 

For the past ten years I have been doing intensive research on the relationship of 
the Felidae, starting from behaviour, but gradually adducing evidence from all other 
available material, such as anatomy, furs, caryology, serology. It is my opinion that, 
due to the complicated pattern of character distribution within the family, a better 
classification than the existing one can be achieved only by working simultaneously 
on all cat species without exception; which is what we here are trying to do. This is, 
of course, a time-consuming enterprise, and it will be at least another 5 or 10 years 
before we shall feel on sufficiently safe ground for publication. However, we are 
quite certain that many and surprising changes in classification will have to be made, 
and that any further ruling now by the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature of the kind suggested by Hemmer would be premature. It is certain 
that a number of genera are required, and that the generic name Felis should be con- 
fined to the group of cats included in that genus by Pocock (Catalogue of the Genus 
Felis, Trustees of the Brit. Museum, London, 1951) and Haltenorth (Die Wildkatzen 
der Allen Welt, Leipzig 1953). However, I strongly doubt the need for subfamily 
and subgeneric names within the family of Felidae and cannot, therefore, support 
Hemmer's request for a ruling on a subgeneric name Tigris, as there is mounting 
evidence that neither the tiger nor the ounce has a particularly close relationship with 
Panthera prof)er, that is lion, leopard and jaguar. A study on the problem of hyoid 
bone ossification is in progress. There is reason to suspect that non-ossification of 
the epihyal bone in large cats is linked with body size rather than kinship. 

In short, I am thoroughly in favour of Tortonese's comment (vol. 24, page 3) 
against issuing any rulings now which in all probability would have to be revoked or 
altered again in a few years' time. I feel confident that in the not too distant future 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43 

sufficient evidence will be available to resolve apparent discrepancies between the work 
of Haltenorth, Hemmer, myself and other workers and to support the proposal of a 
nomenclature for all the Felidae which will last. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 25, Parts 4/5. January 1969 : 130 

References 
AviLA-PiRES, F. D. DE 1966. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : 69-70 
Blumenbach, J. p. 1775. De generis humani varietate nativa : 37 

1779. Handb. Naturgesch. : 65 

Hemmer, H. 1966. Veroff. Zool. Siaatssaml. Miinchen 11 : 1-121 

1967. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 259-261 

Hershkovitz, p. 1966. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : 67-69 

1967. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 261-262 

Leyhausen, p. 1969. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 130 
Mayr, E. 1967. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 66 
Mazak, V. 1968. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 66-67 

Napier, J. R. & Napier, P. H. 1967. A Handbook of living Primates. London 

and New York 
Morrison-Scott, T. C. S. 1965. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 230-232 
TORTONESE, E. 1967. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 3 
Walker, E. P. 1968. Mammals of the World. 2nd ed. Baltimore 

The following selection of references is widely used in a variety of institutions concerned 
with zoology: 

Recent usage of Pan and Panthera: — 

International Zoo Yearbook 

Red data book. lUCN UNESCO (Mammalia 2nd ed 1972) 

Zoological Record 

Recent usage of Pan: — 

Bibliotheca Primatologica 

FiENNES, R. 1967. Zoonoses of Primates. Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London 

Folia Primatologica 

Hafez, E. S. E. (Ed.). 1971. Comparative reproduction of non-human primates. 

Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, USA 
Hill, W. C. O. 1972. Evolutionary biology of the primates. Academic Press. 

London & New York 
Morris, D. 1965. The mammals. Hodder & Stoughton in association with the 

Zoological Society of London. London 

Primates 

Recent usage of Panthera: — 

Crandall, L. S. 1 964. Management of wild mammals in captivity. University of 

Chicago Press. Chicago & London 
Ewer, R. F. 1973. The carnivores. Weidenfeld & Nicholson. London 
Hsu, T. C. & Benirischke, K. 1967. An atlas of mammalian chromosomes. Springer 

Verlag. Berlin, Heidelberg & New York 
Schaller, G. B. 1972. The Serengeti lion. University of Chicago Press. Chicago 



44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

APPLICATION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF DELPHINUS 

PERNETTENSIS de BLAINVILLE, 1817 AND DELPHINUS 

PERNETTYI DESMAREST, 1820. Z.N.(S.) 1974 

By P. J. H. van Bree (Instiluut voor Taxonomische Zoologie, Universiteit van 
Amsterdam, The Netherlands) 

The following paper by Dr. van Bree, was first published in Beaufortia 
volume 19, No. 244 on May 28, 1971 and is here republished by kind permission 
of the Director of the Institute of Taxonomic Zoology, University of Amsterdam 
and the board of editors of Beaufortia. Some references have been added by 
Dr. van Bree who, remarks; 

"It is almost impossible to send you a complete list of references of papers 
in which the name plagiodon has been used; that would be a very long list 
indeed. The name has been used currently in the section 'Mammalia' of the 
Zoological Record (e.g. see vol. 103 (1966) : 350). Except for the checklist by 
Hershkovitz (1966) and the paper by Eraser (1950) the name plagiodon has been 
the only one used during the past 70 years." 



ON THE TAXONOMIC STATUS OF DELPHINUS PERNETTENSIS 

de BLAINVILLE, 1817 

(NOTES ON CETACEA, DELPHINOIDEA II) 

Abstract 

According (o the author insufficient proofs exist to consider Stenella plagiodon (Cope, 1866) 
a junior synonym of Delphimis penieltensis de Blainvilie, 1817 or of Delphinus perneltyi 
Desmarest, 1820. To avoid further confusion the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature is requested to use their plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the 
Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the following specific names: a. 
pernettensis de Blainvilie, 1817, as published in the combination Delphinus perneltensis: b. 
pernettyi Desmarest, 1820, as published in the combination Delphinus pernetryi. 

In 1817, H. M. Ducrotay de Blainvilie described in the Nouveau Dictionnaire 
d'Histoire Naturelle, edited by A. G. Desmarest, volume IX (:I54), the dolphin 
species Delphinus perneltensis as follows : 

"[Sous-genre — Delphinorhynchus] Quatrieme Espece — Dauphin de 
Pernetty {Delphinus Pernettensis, Blainvilie). Cette espece, qui appartient 
peut-etre au sous-genre suivant [Delphinus], a ete decrite et figuree par Pernetty, 
Voyage aux iles Malouines, p. 99, tab. II, fig. 1. L'animal pesoit cent livres, ce 
qui indique une tres-petite taille pour un cetace; sa tete etoit terminee anterieure- 
ment par un bourrelet se prolongeant presque en bee d'oiseau et revetu d'une 
peau epaisse et grise. Ce bee etoit arme de dents aigues, blanches et de la forme 
de celle du brochet ; la machoire inferieure parroisoit sensiblement plus longue 
que la superieure; le dos etoit noiratre et le ventre d'un gris de perle, un peu 
jaunatre, mouchete de taches noires, et d'autres gris de fer. Les nageoires 
pectorales, attachees tres-bas, etoient arquees; la dorsale aussi arquee, etoit 
grande et placee assez pres de la queue." 

Bull. zool. NomencL, Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 



45 



In another publication, two years later, Desmarest (1820 : 513) changed the 
name and called the species Delphinus Pernettyi. He did not indicate clearly 
he considered his spelling the right one, so in fact "pernettyi" is an incorrect 
subsequent spelling and therefore nomenclatorially non-existent. But even if 
we accept that Desmarest intended to correct the name, then it is an unjustified 
emendation and that thereby the name pernettyi has become a junior objective 
synonym of pernettensis. 




Fig. 1. Delphinus pernettensis and a seabird, probably a Noddy (Anous stolidus); after 
Peme(t)ty 1769 & 1770, pi. U. 



The above-cited diagnosis is very nondescript and can be applied to a 
number of species of dolphin. Already in 1 827 ( : 406), Lesson wrote about 
the species; "Cette espece est douteuse et ne repose que sur une description 
imparfaite de Pernetty". The species therefore, when cited, was placed incertae 
sedis and its description mostly ignored or forgotten {nomen dubium). 

True, in 1884, while describing a dolphin caught off Pensacola, which he 
thought to be identical with Prodelphinus ( = Stenella) doris (Gray, 1846) but 
which turned out to be a specimen of Delphinus plagiodon Cope, 1866 (now 
Stenella plagiodon), compared his animal with the description of Delphinus 
pernettensis. He came to the conclusion (: 322): "If our Pensacola specimen 
is to be accredited to any species known only by the exterior, I believe it should 
be to this D. Pernetyi. As no portions of the animal were preserved, however, 
and no diagnosis or measurements were given, I think it undesirable to with- 
draw the species in question from the list of especes douteuses." 



46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

In later publications True does not refer again to the Dauphin de Pernetty, 
not even in his important revision of the Delphinidae (1889). Fraser in 1950, 
however, again referred to the diagnosis of Delphinus pernettensis in his study 
on Stenella frontalis. He also compares D. pernettensis with Stenetla plagiodon 
and he says (: 64): "On the whole it seems likely that, as True (1884 : 322) 
indicated, Pernetty's dolphin has its affinities with the specimen which True 
finally identified as belonging to S. plagiodon" 

Fraser probably came to this carefully worded conclusion, because while 
reading the journal by Pernety (1769), he finds that the dolphin mentioned 
by the traveller is sighted first ( : 77) near the Cape Verde Islands at 6°43' N, 
25° 17' W and caught (: 122) in the neighbourhood of the Abrolhos Archipelago 
at 16°44' S, 35° 10' W (near the coast of Brazil), It must be noted that the 
positions mentioned are recorded in the old French way (cf. Meridian of Paris). 
As far as is now known, Stenella plagiodon inhabits subtropical and tropical 
waters at the Atlantic side of North and Central America, and its discovery 
in tropical waters near South-America would not come as a surprise. Therefore 
it cannot be excluded that a dolphin with a spotted pattern, caught near the 
Abrolhos Archipelago, could be a Stenella plagiodon and if so, this name could 
be a junior synonym of Delphinus pernettensis. 

The academic conclusion of Fraser, however, has been interpreted in the 
wrong way by Hershkovitz (1966 : 41). This author (after Fraser) in his 
checklist of recent Cetacea considers Stenella plagiodon without any doubt to 
be a junior synonym of Delphinus pernettensis and he adopts the position near 
the Abrolhos Archipelago (see above) as the type locality of the species. 

The present author after studying the diagnosis by de Blainville (1817) and 
the notes by Fraser (1950) was struck by the difference between the pages of 
the book by Pernetty cited by both scientists. After investigation, it turned 
out that two editions exist of the "Voyage aux iles Malouines". The first one, 
pubUshed in Berlin (Etienne de Bourdeaux) in 1769 and in which the author 
is called Pernety (see latin name used by True, 1884), is very rare and only a few 
copies exist. The second edition (nouvelle edition) was published in 1770 in 
Paris (Saillant & Nyon-Delalain) and is more conmion. 

Checking both editions with reference to the description of the dolphin I 
found that Fraser was right in that in the 1769 edition the dolphins were first 
sighted near the Cape Verde Islands (: 77) and that a specimen was caught 
near the Abrolhos Archipelago (: 122). In the second edition, however, on 
page 99 (and following ones) the author describes that the dolphins were seen 
and a specimen was caught between the islands Boa Vista and Maio of the Cape 
Verde Islands. Near the Abrolhos Archipelago ( : 131) orJy a seabird, probably 
a Noddy (Anous stolidus), was caught (see the figure of the dolphin and the bird 
reproduced herewith; these figures are the same in both editions). 

As de Blainville (1817 : 154) refers to page 99 of the book by Pernetty it is 
clear that he had in hands the "nouvelle edition" and that according to him 
therefore, the type locality of the dolphin species of which he gives the diagnosis, 
is near the Cape Verde Islands and not in the neighbourhood of the Abrolhos 
Archipelago. As up to the present no specimen of Stenella plagiodon has been 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47 

caught near the African coast*), it is therefore very unlikely that Delphinus 
pernettensis and Stenella plagiodon are synonyms for the same species. 

As previously stated, the description of Delphinus pernettensis is very 
nondescript and can be applied to several species. For instance, see the 
description and photograph of a specimen of Stenella, named provisionally 
Stenella punctata (Gray, 1846), caught near the Cape Verde Islands in 1951 
(Cadenat, 1956: 91; 1959: pi. 18). As nothing of the Pernetty's dolphin has 
been preserved and we are therefore not able to check further identifications, 
for the sake of stability in nomenclature it would be unwise to attach value 
to the diagnosis and name of Delphinus pernettensis. The taxonomy of Cetacea 
is already too complicated to waste time on intellectual games, speculating on 
which dolphin species could be Delphinus pernettensis. The author therefore 
requests the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use 
their plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but 
not for those of the Law of Homonymy the following specific names : 

a. pernettensis de Blainville, 1817, as pubhshed in the combination Delphinus 
pernettensis: 

b. pernettyi Desmarest, 1820, as published in the combination Delphinus 
pernettyi. 

At the end of this short article I want to thank most sincerely Madame Dr. 
M. C. Saint Girons (Paris) and Dr. P. E. Purves (London) for their help in 
checking old pubbcations and for the correction of the EngUsh. I am also 
grateful to Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Leiden) for his advice concerning zoological 
nomenclature. 



References 
Cadenat, J. 1956. A propos du Cachalot. — Notes africaines {I.F.A.N.), 71 : 82-92 
1959. Rapport sur les petits Cetaces ouest-africains. — Bull. I.F.A.N., 21 (A) : 

1367-1409,31 pis. 
Cadenat, J. & Lassarat, A. 1959. Notes sur les Delphinides ouest-africains IV: 

Notes sur un Prodelphinus indetermine de Cote dTvoire. — Bull. I.F.A.N., 

21(A) : 777-781, 5 pis. 
**CopE, E. D. 1866. Third contribution to the history of the Balaenldae and 

Delphinidae. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia 18 : 293-298 (Delphinus 

plagiodon : 296-297) 
[Desmarest, A. G. ed.] 1817. Nouveau dictionnaire d'hisloire naturelle, etc. 9 

Deterville, Paris : 1 + 1-624, 6 pis. 
Desmarest, A. G. 1820. Mammalogie ou description des especes de mammiferes, 

Agasse, Paris : i-viii, 1-555 + 1, 112 + 14 + 12 pis 
"Elliot, D. G. 1905. A checklist of mammals of the North American continent, 

the West Indies, and the neighboring seas. Pubis. Field Mus. (Zool.) 105 : i-iv, 

1-761 (Prodelphinus plagiodon : 33) 
Eraser, F. C. 1950. Description of a dolphin Stenella frontalis (Cuvier) from the 

coast of French Equatorial Africa. — Atlantide Rep., 1 : 61-84, 4 pis 

•A study of the skull of a dolphin caught off Abidjan (Ivory Coast), which according to 
Cadenat & Lassarat (1959) might be a Stenella plagiodon, revealed that it does not belong to 
that species but to Stenella frontalis (G. Cuvier, 1829). 

"These references are those added by Dr. van Bree after the publication of this paper in 
Beaiiforlia. 



48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

**Hall, E. R. & Kelson, K. R. 1959. The mammals of North America (2 vols.). 

Ronald Press Comp., New York : i-xxx, 1-546 
Hershkovitz, Ph. 1966. Catalog of living whales. — Bull. U.S. nation. Mus., 246 : 

l-VIII, 1-259. 
Lesson, R. P. 1827. Manuel de mammalogie, ou histoire naturelle des mammiferes, 

Roret, Paris : i-xv, 1^441 +1 
**MiLLER, G. S. 1924. List of North American recent mammals. Bull. U.S. natn. 

Mus. 128 : i-xvi, 1-673 (Prodelphinus plagiodon : 508) 
**MiLLER, G. S. & Kellog, R. 1955. List of North American recent mammals. 

Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. 205 : i-xii, 1-954 (Stenella ptagiodon : 656-657) 
Pernety, [A. J.] 1769. Journal historique d'un Voyage fait aux lies Malouines en 

1763 & 1764, etc, Etienne de Bourdeaux, Berlin : I-XVI, 3^03, 404-704 + 

47, 16 pis. 
Pernetty, [A. J.] 1770. Histoire d'un voyage aux Isles Malouines fait en 1763 & 

1764, etc.: Nouv. ed., Saillant & Nyon-Delalain, Paris: 1-385, 1-334+2, 

16 pis. 
True, F. W. 1884. On a spotted dolphin apparently identical with Prodelphinus 

doris of Gray. Smiths, rep. for 1884(2) ■.3\ 7-324, 6 pis. 
1889. Contributions to the natural history of the cetaceans: A review of the 

family Delphinidae.— Bm//. U.S. nation. Mus., 36 : 1-191, 47 pis. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49 

SESARMA TRAPEZIUM DANA, 1852 (CRUSTACEA : DEC APOD A): 
PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERSi 

Z.N.(S.) 2016 

By Lawrence G. Abele (Rosensliel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, 
University of Miami, Miami, Florida 33149, U.S.A.) 

The suppression of the specific name trapezium Dana, 1852, as published 
in the combination Sesarma trapezium and now known as Metasesarma trape- 
zium is requested here. The identity of this species and the actual type locality 
have so far never been established with certainty. As the name is probably a 
senior synonym of that of a well known western Atlantic species it poses a 
threat to nomenclatural stability. Although the type specimen was stated by 
Stimpson (1861, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1861 : 372-373) to be in the 
Smithsonian Institution, a search of this institution, of the Museum of Com- 
parative Zoology, Harvard University and of the Peabody Museum of Natural 
History, Yale University failed to locate any type or other material of this 
species. 

Dana (1852, Crustacea. In United States Exploring Expedition during 
the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, under the command of Charles Wilkes, 
U.S.N., 13 (1) : 1-685) described the new species Sesarma trapezium from the 
"Sandwich Islands". He gave a short description and in 1855 (Atlas. Crustacea. 
In United States Exploring Expedition during the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 
under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N., pis. 1-96.) pubhshed figures of 
this species. Stimpson (op. cit.) examined Dana's material in the Smithsonian 
Institution and placed S. trapezium in the genus Metasesarma. The material 
has since been lost, presumably having been destroyed in the Chicago fire of 
1871 (see Evans, 1967, J. Nat. Hist., 1 : 399-411). 

The species Metasesarma trapezium has been mentioned by seven authors 
in eight different works but only Dana and Stimpson examined actual material, 
viz., the type material. Despite several surveys and much collecting in the 
Hawaiian Islands, the species has not been found there (Rathbun, 1906, Bull. 
U.S. Fish. Comm., 23 (3) : 829-930; Edmondson, 1959, Oca. Pap. Bernice P. 
Bishop Mus., 22 (10) : 153-202). In fact, no species of the genus Metasesarma 
is known to occur in the Hawaiian Islands. 

Rathbun (1897, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 11 : 89-92) described the new species 
Sesarma rubripes from Bahia (El Salvador), Brazil. At that time she did not 
recognize the genus Metasesarma. In her 1918 monograph (Bull. U.S. Nat. 
Mus., 97 : 320) she placed the species S. rubripes in the genus Metasesarma 
and noted a "suspicious resemblance" between this species and S. trapezium. 
She was evidently unaware of, or had overlooked the fact that S. trapezium 
had been placed in the genus Metasesarma. 



'Scientific contribution No. 1748 from the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric 
Science, University of Miami. This was supported by Research Grant No. 7075X from the 
National Science Foundation. I thank Dr. Lipke B. Holthuis for his advice and comments. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Comparison of Dana's description and figures of S. trapezium with descrip- 
tions, figures and material of M. rubripes reveals no differences between these 
two species and they should be considered conspecific. Metasesarma rubripes 
occurs in the western Atlantic, including the coast of Brazil. It is found there 
in areas visited by the U.S. Exploring Expedition where material was collected. 
It is a well known fact that the material collected during the U.S. Exploring 
Expedition has not been handled with proper care. It seems possible that the 
type material of Sesarma trapezium may have been mislabelled as to locality 
and that the material may have actually come from Brazil. 

The name Metasesarma rubripes is used, as it is in smaller papers, such as 
Abele, 1972 (Carib. J. Sci., 12 (3/4) : 165) and Moreira, 1903 {Archos Mus. 
nac. Rio de J. 12 : 112, pi. 1), in the fundamental works on the American 
Grapsidae by Rathbun (1918), in Boschi's (1964, Bol. Inst. Mar. Biol., Argentina, 
6 : 64) monograph on the Argentinian Brachyura, in Diaz and Ewald's (1968, 
Crustaceana suppl., 2 : 225) study on larval development and most recently in 
Chace and Hobbs' (1969, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., 292 : 175) handbook on the 
freshwater and terrestrial decapods of the West Indies. 

Thus in three major works on the systematics of the western Atlantic 
Brachyura, as well as in all smaller papers dealing with that fauna, the name 
M. rubripes has been consistently applied to a single well known species while 
the name M. trapezium has not been applied to any material since 1861. Regret- 
tably, I am not able to provide more references than those by six authors in 
seven publications and I am therefore aware that the conditions laid down in 
Art. 79(b) of the Code are unfulfilled. The holotype (preserved in the British 
Museum of Natural History) and other material of M. rubripes is available 
while evidently no type material of M. trapezium is extant. In view of the 
well established usage of the specific name rubripes and the confusion which 
would result if this name were substituted by trapezium it seems best to suppress 
the latter name trapezium. 

The action that is now requested from the International Commission of 
Zoological Nomenclature is that they: 

(1) make use of their plenary powers to suppress for the purpose of the 

Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the 
specific name trapezium an pubhshed in the combination Sesarma 
trapezium Dana, 1852 and; 

(2) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 

Zoology the name trapezium Dana, 1852, as suppressed under (1) 
above. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51 

LOLIGO STEARNSII nEU?HlLL, 1892 (MOLLUSCA, CEPHALOPODA): 
REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

Z.N.(S.) 2041 

By Gilbert L. Voss {Rosenstiel Scliool of Marine and Atmospheric Science, 
University of Miami, 1 Rickenbacl<er Causeway, Virginia Key, Miami, Florida 

33149, U.S.A.) 

1 . A new species of squid, Loligo stearnsii, was described by Henry Hemphill 
(1892 : 51) from specimens purchased in the San Francisco and Oakland, 
California fish markets. The fish dealers said these were "taken in nets outside 
the Heads by the Chinese fishermen." The description consists of the following 
statements. "The body and arms of my largest specimen measured about 10 
inches, the two longest arms being about three inches longer. The arms are not 
webbed, but each of the eight short ones have two rows of suckers their entire 
length, while the other arms have a small patch of small suckers toward their 
tips . . . nine individuals . . . weigh a pound, so we may say they weigh about two 
ounces each. ... In the form of its body and the coloring, as well as in the form 
of the fin, it closely resembles Loligo gain D'Orbigny. . . .This form makes an 
interesting addition to our west coast Cephalopods, and if upon further study I 
should conclude it to be new, I propose to call it Loligo Stearnsii." No type 
material was mentioned or known to exist. 

2. Hoyle (1897 : 370) in his Catalogue of Recent Cephalopoda listed 
L. Stearnsii from the California region and in a footnote stated "This is a mere 
nomen nudum: the description is quite worthless, as the species could never be 
recognized from it." However, the value of the description has nothing to do 
with the definition of a nomen nudum. 

3. S. S. Berry (1911 : 591) described a new squid, Loligo opalescens, from 
Puget Sound, Washington. The type was deposited in the collections of 
Stanford University. 

4. In a subsequent review of the cephalopods of western North America, 
Berry (1912 : 294) included L. Stearnsii questionably in the synonymy of 
L. opalescens. Later (p. 297) he stated his reasons for rejecting L. stearnsii 
were. "It will be observed that the only 'diagnosis' offered is to be found in the 
lines, 'The arms are not webbed,' and 'it closely resembles Loligo Gahi.' " As 
it is upon these ten words alone that the validity of the name L. stearnsii must 
rest, it would seem that Dr. Hoyle was fully justified in his refusal to recognize 
it as more than a mere nomen nudum. The present writer was at first inclined 
to rehabilitate Hemphill's name and furnish it with the needful description, 
especially since he could not believe that the form in hand was really the one 
here dealt with, but in view of the suspicion that we have more than one Loligo 
on the coast, not to mention the obvious discrepancy in the statement that 
'the arms are not webbed,' the safest course appeared to be to discard the title 
L. stearnsii entirely and adopt an entirely new name." 

5. In 1973 Mr. Allyn Smith, formerly curator of the invertebrate collections 
of the California Academy of Science, informed the writer that two specimens 

Bull. zool. Nomenci, Vol. 31, Part 1 . July 1974. 



52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

of Loligo stearnsii, preserved in alcohol, were in the Henry HemphDl collection 
when it was acquired by the California Academy of Sciences and were acces- 
sioned into the Type Collection of the Department of Geology as Syntypes 
Nos. 2321 and 2322. Both specimens came from "Oakland Market" (Depart- 
ment of Geology locality No. 11,604) according to current labels. These 
specimens have now been transferred to the Department of Invertebrate 
Zoology. Along with the two preserved whole animals there are three dry- 
preserved gladii, also labelled Loligo stearnsii, which are indicated as coming 
from "San Francisco Bay, Cahfornia (H. Hemphill locality 5)". The present 
labels are in the handwriting of G. Dallas Hanna who transferred the specimens 
from the original jars to sealed lengths of fluorescent tubing. They are desig- 
nated as Syntypes. It is presumed that Hanna recopied the deteriorated 
original labels but no positive proof now exists. From the information 
available it seems probable that these indeed are the types of L. stearnsii as they 
are from the Oakland Market as originally designated, and dissected pens are 
also present. 

6. Examination of the two specimens shows that they are identical with 
L. opalescens. Both Berry and Hoyle were incorrect in stating that L. stearnsii 
was a nomen nudum. No other species of the genus Loligo is known to occur 
on the western coast of North America north of San Diego. Therefore, 
L. opalescens Berry, 1911, is a junior synonym of L. stearnsii Hemphill, 1892. 

7. The name L. stearnsii was used only sparsely from 1892 to 1911 when 
L. opalescens was described. Since 1911 it has rarely appeared and has never 
been used in primary scientific literature except as a questionable synonym or 
as a nomen nudum. 

8. Since 1912 all students of cephalopods, without exception, have used 
the specific name opalescens. It is firmly established in teaching texts and 
laboratory manuals, the extensive fisheries literature and medical research 
literature. In accordance with Article 79(b) of the Code, the following is a list 
of authors, all of whom have employed opalescens in the last 50 years : Classic, 
R. R., 1929; Fields, W. G., 1950, 1965; Frey, H. W., 1971 ; Iverson, I. L. K. & 
Pinka's, L., 1971 ; MacGinitie, G. E. & MacGinitie, N., 1968; McGowan, J. A., 
1954; Mercer, M. C, 1969; Okutani, T. & McGowan, J. A., 1969; Voss, G. L., 
1973 and Zuev, G. V. & Nesis, K. N., 1971. 

9. In order to maintain nomenclatural stability in this group of animals, 
and to prevent confusion in the fisheries, medical and academic literature, 
Loligo opalescens should be preserved as the vaUd name for this species im- 
portant to the commercial fisheries and to medical research. 

10. It is therefore requested of the International Commission on Zoo- 
logical Nomenclature to : 

(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name stearnsii Hemphill, 

1892, as published in the binomen Loligo stearnsii, for the purposes of 
the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; 

(2) place the specific name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) 

above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names 
in Zoology; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53 

(3) place the specific name opalescens Berry, 1911, as published in the 
binomen Loligo opalescens, in the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology. 

Literature Cited 

Berry, S. S. 1911. Preliminary notices of some new Pacific cephalopods. Proc. 

U.S. natn. Miis., 40 (1838) : 589-592 
- — 1912. A review of the cephalopods of Western North America. Bull. Bur. 

Fish., Wash., 30 : 269-336 
Classic, R. R. 1929. Monterey squid fishery. Calif. Fish. Game 15 (4) : 317-320 
Fields, W. G. 1950. A preliminary report on the fishery and on the biology of the 

squid, Loligo opalescens. Calif. Fish. Game 36 (4) : 366-377 
1965. The structure, development, food relations, reproduction, and life 

history of the squid Loligo opalescens Berry. Fish. Bull. Calif No. 131 : 1-108 
Frey, H. W. 1971. Squid. In: California's living marine resources. Calif. Depl. 

Fish and Game : 33-34 
Hemphill, H. 1892. Note on a California Loligo. Zoe 3:51 
HoYLE, W. E. 1897. A catalogue of Recent Cephalopoda. Supplement, 1887- 

1896. Proc. R.phys. Soc. Edinb. : 363-375 
Iverson, L L. K. and Pinkas, L. 1971. A pictorial guide to beaks of certain eastern 

Pacific cephalopods. Fish. Bull. Calif No. 152 : 83-105 [p. 91, figs of 

beaks, etc.] 
Macginitie, G. E. and Macginitie, N. 1968. Natural History of Marine animals. 

Second edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company : 523 pp. [Loligo opalescens 

p. 400-401] 
McGOWAN, J. A. 1954. Observation on the sexual behaviour and spawning of the 

squid, Loligo opalescens, at La Jolla, California. Calif. Fish. Game 40 (1) : 

47-54 
Mercer, M. C. 1969. A synopsis of the recent Cephalopoda of Canada. Proc. 

Symp. Mollusca, India Part 1, 1968 : 265-276 [pp. 269, 271] 
Okutani, T. and McGowan, J. A. 1969. Systematics, distribution, and abundance 

of the epiplanktonic squid (Cephalopoda, Decapoda) larvae of the California 

Current, April, 1954-March, 1957. Bull. Scripps Instn Oceanogr. 14 : 1-90 

[Loligo (s.s.) opalescens Berry, 1911 p. 8] 
Voss, G. L. 1973. Cephalopod resources of the world. Fisheries Circular, F.A.O., 

Rome (In press) 
ZuEv, G. V. and Nesis, K. N. 1971. [Biology and fishery of squids]. Pishchevaya, 

Moscow : 360 pp. [In Russian. L. opalescens, pp. 127-133] 



54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

CYCLOGYRA WOOD, 1842 (FORAMINIFERIDA): 

PROPOSAL FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER 

THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2051 

By Richard W. Ponder {Geology Department, James Cook University of North 
Queensland, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.) 

1. Prior to 1961 the generic name Cyclogyra Wood (1842), had fallen into 
disuse for over a hundred years. It was reinstated by Loebhch and Tappan 
(1961) and the well known genus Cornuspira Schultze (1854) placed in its 
synonymy. Contemporary foraminiferal workers are now divided on which 
genus has priority. To maintain stabihty and prevent confusion the Inter- 
national Commission is asked to discard the name Cyclogyra and its type 
species C. multiplex on the basis of the arguments given below. 

2. Wood introduced Cyclogyra in 1842 (p. 458, pi. 5, fig. 5), with a vague, 
brief description. He only included one species in Cyclogyra, C. multiplex 
Wood (1842), which is the type by monotypy (Article 68). There was no active 
use of Cyclogyra for well over a century and in the two references to it during 
this period, Sherborn (1896, p. 481) regarded it as synonymous with Cornuspira 
and Galloway (1933, p. 109) placed it in synonymy with Cornuspira as a nomen 
dubium. Consequently, as Resig (1969, p. 57) suggests, Cyclogyra should be 
considered a nomen oblitum (Article 23b), even though subsequent to 1961 
Cyclogyra has been actively used. In 1961 Loeblich and Tappan (p. 290) 
synonymised Cornuspira with Cyclogyra and erected the Subfamily Cyclo- 
gryinae, as a substitute name for Subfamily Cornuspirinae Rhumbler (1904). 
In 1964 they substituted Family Cornuspiridae Schultz (1854) for Family 
Fischerinidae Millett (1898). Even though since 1961 several species have been 
referred to Cyclogyra no new species have appeared in the literature (up to at 
least 1969). 

3. Wood collected C. multiplex from the Pliocene of England. Since its 
introduction it has not been used in the literature except its mention in Loeblich 
and Tappan (1961, 1964) as the type oi Cyclogyra. Morphologically, it appears 
indistinguishable from Cornuspira involvens (Reuss, 1850), which has been 
recorded from early Tertiary to Recent. It seems therefore most likely that 
C. involvens is a junior synonym of C. multiplex. However, C. involvens is 
extremely well entrenched in the hterature with more references to it than any 
other member of Cornuspira (see Cushman, 1929, p. 80, 81). Its synonymy 
with C. multiplex therefore would undoubtedly create considerable confusion. 
In contrast there will be no effect on the literature, at the species level, if C. 
multiplex was made a nomen oblitum. 

4. Schultze (1854, p. 40, pi. 2, figs. 21, 22) introduced Cornuspira with a 
clear description lacking only characteristics of the wall structure. He also 
described two new species at length, C. planorbis (loc. cit. p. 40) and C perforata 
(loc. cit. p. 41), (a member of the equivalent perforate calcareous genus Spiril- 
lina) and briefly discusses other species belonging to Cornuspira. Brady 
(1884, p. 199) designated one of these species, Orbis foliaceus Phihppi (1844), 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55 

as the type species. Since the introduction of Cornuspira over 100 years ago, 
it has been firmly entrenched in the literature with the following species placed 
within it: 

Cornuspira {Psammophis) anguineus Cherdynzev, 1914; C. angulata Deecke, 
1884; C. antarctica Rhumbler, 1931; C. archimedes Stache, 1864; C. aspera 
Terquem, 1870; C. augusta Friedberg, 1902; C. bayonnensis Zwingli and 
Kiibler, 1870; C. biedermanni Zwingli and Kiibler, 1870; C. bornemanni Reuss, 
1863; C. byramensis Cushman, 1935; C. carinata (Costa) Brady, 1884; C. 
foliacea carinata Silvestri, 1893; C. charoides Heron-Allen and Earland, 1914; 
C. concava Terquem, 1870; C concava Zwingli and Kiibler, 1870; C. concava 
Spandel, 1898; C. conica Spandel, 1912; C. convexa Zwingli and Kiibler, 1870; 
C. cordiforma Protescu, 1922; C. corticata Chapman and Parr, 1937; C. crassa 
Zwingli and Kubler, 1870; C. crassisepta Brady, 1882; C. cretacea Reuss, 1845; 
C. denticulata Heron-Allen and Earland, 1932; C. diffusa Heron-Allen and 
Earland, 1913; C. eichbergensis Zwingli and Kubler, 1870; C. elliptica Stache, 
1864; C. elliptica ZwingU and Kubler, 1870; C. carinata expansa Chapman, 
1915; C. filiformis Reuss, 1868; C {Psammophis) filiformis Cherdynzev, 1914; 
C. foliacea (Philippi) Carpenter, Parker and Jones, 1 862 ; C. fragilis Le Roy, 
1944; C. gracilis Zwingli and Kiibler, 1888; C. granulosa Terquem, 1870; 
C. helvetica Zwingli and Kiibler, 1870; C. hornesi Karrer, 1865; C. infima 
(Strickland) Tate and Blake, 1876; C. infroolithica Terquem, 1870; C. inter- 
media, Giimbel, 1873; C. involvens (Reuss) Reuss, 1863; C. (Hemigordius) 
japonica Ozawa, 1925; C. kamae Cherdynzev, 1914; C kinkelini Spandel, 1898; 
C. lacimosa Brady, 1884; C. lajollaensis Uchio, 1960; C. latior Zwingli and 
Kiibler, 1870; C. lenisensis Beck, 1943; C. Hasina Terquem, 1866; C. lisbonensis 
Bandy, 1949; C. marginata Sars, 1868; C. media, Zwingli and Kubler, 1870; 
C. megasphaerica Gerke in Miklukho-Maclay, 1963, 1970; C. microsphaerica 
Miklukho-Maclay, 1963; C. modlingensis Toula, 1915; C. neudorfensis Toula, 
1914; C. mimismalis (Terquem and Berthelin), Burbach, 1886; C. nummulitica 
Giimbel, 1868; C. obscura Heron-Allen and Earland, 1924; C. occlusa Terquem, 
1870; C. olygogyra Hantken, 1875; C. oolithica Schwager, 1868; C. orbicula 
(Terquem and Berthelin) Deecke, 1886; C pachygyra Hantken, 1875; C. 
perforata Schultze, 1854; C. planorbis Schultze, 1854; C. plicata (Czjzek), 
Bogdanovich, 1952; C. polarisans Rhumbler, 1911; C. polygyra Reuss, 1863; 
C primitiva Rhumbler, 1903; C. primitiva Bartenstein and Brand, 1951; C. 
pussila Chuvashov, 1965; C. punctulata Terquem, 1870; C. pygmaea Andreae, 
1884; C. reussi Bornemann, 1855; C. rugulosa Reuss, 1856; C. schlumbergeri 
Howchin, 1895; C. selseyensis Heron- Allen and Earland, 1909; C. senonica 
Dunikowski, 1879; C. spandeli Paalzow, 1935; C. striolata Brady, 1882; 
C subprimitiva Bartenstein and Brand, 1952; C. involvens substriatula Cushman, 
1921; C. tasmanica Parr, 1950; C. tentaculata Rhumbler, 1911; C. tenuissima 
(Giimbel) Schwagner, 1865; C. thompsoni Cushman and Waters, 1928; C. 
undulata ZwingU and Kiibler, 1870; C. variabilis Zwingli and Kiibler, 1870. 
5. Foraminiferal taxonomists agree that Cornuspira encompasses por- 
cellanous species with an undivided planispirally coiled tube with the aperture 
situated at the end of the tube. There has however been some confusion in 
which species is the type of Cornuspira and in which genus C. foliacea should be 



56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

placed. The chamber in C. foliacea becomes somewhat flattened in later 
ontogeny due to chamber height increasing more rapidly than chamber thick- 
ness. In the juvenile test chamber height and thickness are of similar dimensions 
as in C. planorbis (the only porcellanous species described by Schultze). Brady 
(1884) probably chose Orbis foliaceus as the type species of Cornuspira as he, 
hke earlier workers including Williamson (1858) and Parkei and Jones (1865), 
considered it the senior synonym of C. planorbis. Also C. foliacea was the 
best known and first described species belonging to Cornuspira. Though 
Cushman (1917, p. 24) followed this designation, Cushman (1927, p. 188) 
considered C. planorbis a distinct species. He changed the type designation 
to C. planorbis on the basis that the previous designation was in error as Schultze 
had not listed C. foliacea as an included species at the estabUshment of 
Cornuspira. 

6. Wiesner (1931), followed by several other authors, then considered 
C. foliacea to be a member of Cornuspiroides (which differs from Cornuspira 
in its later uncoiled flabelliform test) due to the rather expanded, flattened 
chambers in later ontogeny. Loeblich and Tappan (1964) however show that 
C. foliacea was one of the names used by Schultze under Cornuspira and the 
original designation of Brady (Cushman, 1917, in Loeblich and Tappan) must 
stand. They previously (1961) had synonymised Cornuspira with Cyclogyra 
and this synonymy was retained by them. They retained Cornuspiroides as a 
separate genus. 

7. C. foliacea spans from Tertiary to Recent. Records include: 
Orbis foliaceus PhiUpp'i, 1844 : 147. 

Spirillina foliacea Willisimson, 1858 : 91. 

Cornuspira foliacea Carpenter, Parker and Jones, 1862 : 68. - Brady, 1864 : 472. 
- Reuss, 1865 : 121. - Parker and Jones, 1865 : 408. -Jones, Parker and 
Brady, 1866 : 2. - Brady, 1867 : 92. - Reuss, 1867 : 67. - Karrer, 1868 : 131. - 
Reuss, 1870 : 464. -Schlicht, 1870, pi. 35, figs. 11, 12. -Brady, 1870:45.- 
Parker, Jones and Brady, 1871 : 238. - Schwager, 1877 : 27. - Butschli, 
1880 : 189. - Moebius, 1880 : 76. - Goes, 1882 : 120. - Brady, 1884 : 199. - 
Balkwill and Wright, 1885 : 326. - Howchin, 1889 : 4. - Wright, 1891 : 465. - 
Egger, 1893 : 247. - Silvestri, 1893 : 191. - Woodward, 1893 : 77. - Fornasini, 
1893 : 431. -Goes, 1894 : 106. - Hosius, 1895 : 77. - Silvestri, 1895:41.- 
Jones, 1895 : 128. -Goes, 1896 : 79. - Morton, 1897 : 114. - MiUett, 1898: 
612. - Flint, 1899 : 303. - Kiaer, 1900 : 22. - Rhumbler, 1903 : 287. - Chap- 
man, 1907 : 24. - Bagg, 1908 : 123. - Heron-Allen and Earland, 1909 : 318. - 
Sidebottom, 1910 : 7. - Cushman, 1913 : 11. - Heron-Allen and Earland, 
1913 : 36. - Pearcey, 1914 : 996. - Heron-Allen and Earland, 1915 : 592. - 
Heron-Allen and Earland, 1916 : 216. - Chapman, 1917 : 60. - Cushman, 
1917 :24. -Halkyard, 1919 : 18. - Cushman, 1921 : 387. -Cushman, 1922: 
14. - Heron- Allen and Earland, 1922 : 73. - Heron-Allen and Earland, 1924 
pi. 7, fig. 11. - Hanna and Church, 1928 : 197. - Cushman, 1928 : 79. - Heron- 
AUen and Earland, 1932 : 324. - Earland, 1933 : 50. - Hofker, 1933:93.- 
Earland, 1934 : 52. - Lolom, 1942 : 29. - Agip, 1957, Tav. 8.-Reed, 1965 : 66. 
Cornuspiroides foliaceum (Philippi). - Wiesner, 1931 : 61. - Bermiidez, 1949: 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57 

113. - Uchio, 1960 : 10. - Hofker, 1960 : 240. - Barker, 1960 : 22. - Andersen, 

1961 :44. -Eade, 1967 : 23. 

Cyclogyra foliacea (Phiiippi). - Moncharmont, 1968 : 13. - Albani, 1970 : 73. 

8. With the synonymy of Cornuspira with Cyclogyra in 1961 the taxonomic 
continuity which had existed for over 100 years was broken and foraminiferal 
workers have been divided on which genus should have priority (see Resig, 
1969, p. 57; Reitlinger, 1969, p. 3). Some have used Cornuspira including 
Andersen, 1961 ; Arnold, 1968; Bermudez and Seiglie, 1963; Boltovoskoy, 1963; 
Boltovoskoy and Lena, 1966; Cebulski, 1969; Chuvashov, 1965; Cita, 1964; 
Cooper, 1964; Gibson, 1967; Goke, 1963; Gordon, 1967; Hornibrook, 1961; 
Hulme, 1964; Knauff, 1966; Kustanovich, 1965; Le Campion, 1970; Lee, 
Pierce, Tentchoff, McLaughlin, 1961; Le Roy, 1964; Leischner, 1961; Lloyd, 
1962; Madeira, 1969; Mamet and Belford, 1968; Matsunga, 1963; Miklukho- 
Maclay, 1963, 1970; Pezzani, 1963; Rao, 1969, 1971; Reed, 1965; Resig, 1969; 
Reitlinger, 1969; Seiglie, 1971; Smith, 1973; Temirbekova, 1972; Todd, 1961, 
1966; Todd and Low, 1967, 1967, 1971; Toomey, 1972; Vilks, 1969; Watkins, 
1961. Others have used Cyclogyra including Akers and Dorman, 1964; Albani, 
1970; Bock, 1971; Chiji and Lopez, 1968; Eade, 1967; Gupta, 1971; Haman, 
1971; Haynes, 1973; Hedley, Hurdle and Burdett, 1967; Lewis, 1970; Loeblich 
and Tappan, 1961, 1964; Lynts, 1962; Marcharmont, 1968; Matoba, 1970; 
Murray, 1968, 1969, 1970; Srinivasan, 1966; Ujiie and Kusukawa, 1969; 
Wright, 1968; Zaninetti and Bronimann, 1969. A most disagreeable result. 

9. Cornuspira is also the type-genus of the Family Cornuspiridae Schultze 
(1854) and Subfamily Cornuspirinae Schultze (1854) nomen translatum Rhum- 
bler, 1904, p. 284), both of which cannot be changed in name or definition if 
Cornuspira were rejected as a junior synonym in favour of Cyclogyra (Article 
40). The substitutes that Loeblich and Tappan (1961, 1964) suggest. Family 
Fischerinidae MiUett (1893) and Cyclogyrinae Loeblich and Tappan (1961), 
were introduced after 1960 and must be considered invalid (Article 40). 

10. To sum up: The type species of Cornuspira, C. foliacea (PhiUppi, 
1844) Schultz (1854): and Family Cornuspiridae Schultze (1854) have been in 
general usage since their introduction. Subsequent to 1960 there has been 
widespread taxonomic confusion with the above supra specific taxa sometimes 
appearing in the synonymy of the genus Cyclogyra Wood (1842) which at 1960 
had the status of a nomen oblitum. Subfamily Cyclogyrininae Loeblich and 
Tappan (1961), and Family Fischerinidae MiUett (1893) respectively. The type 
species of Cyclogyra, C. multiplex Wood (1842), has only been noted in the 
literature by Loeblich and Tappan (1961, 1964) and never used since its intro- 
duction. If C. multiplex is retained it will probably have to become the senior 
synonym of the extremely well known species Cornuspira involvens Reuss 
(1850). 

11. The International Commission is therefore requested: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following names for the 
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of 
Homonymy: 

(a) the generic name Cyclogyra Wood, 1842, type-species by mono- 
typy, Cyclogyra multiplex Wood, 1842, 



58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

(b) the specific name multiplex Wood, 1842, as published in the 
binomen Cyclogyra multiplex, 

(2) to place the generic name Cornuspira Schultze, 1854 (gender : feminine), 

type-species by subsequent designation by Brady (1884), Orbis 
foliaceus Philippi, 1844 on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology : 

(3) to place the specific mme foliaceus Philippi, 1844, as published in the 

binomen Orbis foliaceus (type-species of Cornuspira Schultze, 
1854) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; 

(4) to place the generic name Cyclogyra Wood, 1842 (suppressed under the 

plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invahd Names in Zoology; 

(5) to place the specific name multiplex Wood, 1842, as published in the 

binomen Cyclogyra multiplex (as suppressed under the plenary 
powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Names in Zoology. 

Bibliography 

Brady, H. B. 1884. Report on the Foraminifera dredged by H.M.S. Challenger, 

during the years 1873-1876. Kept. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 9 : 1-814 
CusHMAN, J. A. 1929. The foraminifera of the Atlantic Ocean Ft. 6 Miliolidae. 

U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 104 : 1-101 
Galloway, J. J. 1933. A manual of Foraminifera. James Furman Kemp Mem. 

Ser., Publ. : 1-483 
LoEBLiCH, A. R. Jr. and Tappan, H. 1961. Suprageneric classification of the 

Rhizopodea. J. Paleontology 35 : 245-330 
1964. Sarcodina chiefly "thecamoebians" and Foraminiferida. In: Moore, 

R. C, (Ed.) Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geol. See. Am. 1-2 : Cl- 

C900 
MiLLETT, F. W. 1898. Report on the Recent Foraminifera of the Malay Archi- 
pelago collected by Mr. A. Durrand, F.R.M.S. — Part in. Roy. Micro. Soc., 

J : 607-614 
Reitlinger, E. a. 1969. K Sistematike Paleozoiskikh Kornuspirid. Akad. Nauk. 

SSR, Vop. Mikropal. 11 : 3-17 (Russian) 
Resig, J. M. 1969. Paleontological investigations of deep borings on the Ewa Plain, 

Oahu, Hawaii. Hawaii Inst. Geophys. 69 (2) : 1-99 
Rhumbler, L. 1904. Systematische Zusammenstellung der recenten Retlculosa. 

Archiv Protistenkunde. 3 : 181-294 
Schultze, M. S. 1854. Ueber den Organismus der Polythalamien (Foraminiferen), 

nebst Bemerkungen iiber die Rhizopoden im Allgemeinen. Leipzig : 1-68 
Sherborn, C. D. 1896. An index to the genera and species of the Foraminifera 

Smithsonian Misc. Coll. No. 1031 : 241-485 
Thalmann, H. E. 1960. An index to the genera and species of the Foraminifera, 

1890-1950. G. Vanderbilt Found. Stanford Univ. California : 1-393 
Wood, S. V. 1842. A catalogue of shells from the Crag. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 

(ser. 1)9 : 455^62 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59 

PLATYSTOMATIDAE SCHINER, 1862: PROPOSED CONSERVATION 

AS A FAMILY-GROUP NAME OVER ACHIIDAE FLEMING, 1821 

(INSECTA, DIPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 2053 

By George C. Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural 
Research Service, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) 

and 

David K. McAlpine (The Australian Museum, 6-8 College Street, Sydney 2000, 
A'eti' South Wales, Australia) 

A large, worldwide group of acalyptrate Diptera has been known as Platys- 
tomidae, Platystomatidae, Platystominae, or Platystomatinae, either as a family 
or as a subfamily of Otitidae (=Ortalidae) ever since its proposal by Schiner, 
1862 ; 151, as Platystominae. The taxon has also been designated by family- 
group names bearing a few other endings, but all based upon the genus-name 
Platystoma Meigen, 1803 (genitive platystomalis). 

2. It is clear, however, that the family-group name Achiidae, based upon 
the genus-name Achias Fabricius, 1805 (genitive achiae) and first used by 
Fleming (1821 : 55) in the form Achiasidae, has priority over Platystomatidae. 
The only other instances of the use of group-names based upon Achias that we 
can find are the following: 

(Familia) Achiidarum - Wiedemann. 1830 : 11. 

Achiadae - Bigot, 1852 : 486. 

Achiasidae - Fleming, 1822 : 846 (vol. 2); Bigot, 1853 : 312; 1892 : 191. 

Achiides - Walker, 1857 : 36; 1859 : 121; 1864 : 229. 

Achinae - Schiner, 1868 : 229. 

Achiinae - Brauer, 1880 : 118 (14). 

3. The 2 genera Achias and Platystoma are closely related to each other and 
have generally been placed in the same narrowest named group since Hendel 
(1914a, 1914b) placed both in the final section of his generic keys under the 
titles "Lamprogastrina und Platystomina" and "Lamprogastrina, Loxoneurina, 
und Platystomina" respectively. These group-taxa were, however, not further 
defined. As a small selection of the more comprehensive works wherein the 
name Platystomatidae or other forms based upon the same generic name have 
been used, the following may be cited : 

Becker et al. (1905, as Platystomina); Bezzi (1928, as Platystominae); Brues and 
Melander (1932); Brues, Melander and Carpenter (1954); Colyer and Hammond 
(1951); Enderlein (1924, as Platystomidae, incl. Achias); Harrison (1959, as 
Platystomidae) ; Hendel (1914a, 1914b, as Platystomina); Hennig (1945, as 
Platystomidae); Malloch (1939, as Platystominae, incl. Achias): Seguy (1934, 
as Platystomidae). 

4. In view of these circumstances, amounting to an overwhelming pre- 
dominance of usage of the names based upon Platystoma and virtual discarding 
of any based upon Achias, we petition the Commission: — 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of 

Priority but not for the Law of Homonymy the family-group name 
ACHiiDAE Fleming, 1821 ; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the 

name platystomatidae Schiner, 1862, Wien. ent. Monatschr. 
6 : 151 (as platystominae) ; type-genus Plat y stoma Meigen, 1803 
(genitive stem Platystomat-) ; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group 

Names in Zoology the name achiidae Fleming, 1821, in Suppl. 
Encycl. Brit., vol. 5 ; 55 (as Achiasidae); type-genus Achias Fabricius, 
1 805 (genitive stem Achi-). 



References 

Becker, T., ET al. 1905. Katalog der palaarl<tischen Dipteren. Band IV. Budapest 
Bezzi, M. 1928. Diptera Brachycera of the Fiji Islands. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.). 
Bigot, J. M. F. 1852. Essai d'une classification generale et synoptique de I'ordre des 
insectes dipteres. Annls. Sac. ent. Fr. Ser. (2) 10 : 471^89 

1853. Note pour servir de complement et de correction a I'Essai (etc., as 

above). Awits. Sac. ent. Fr. Ser. (3) 1 : 295-317 

1892. Catalogue of the Diptera of the Oriental region. Part II. /. Asiat. 

Sac. Seng. 61 (pt. O, no. 2) : 133-236 

Brauer, F. 1880. Die Zweiflugler des Kaiserlichen Museums zu Wien. I. Denkschr. 

ost. Akad. IViss. 42 : 106-216, pis. 1-6 (separatum pp. 1-112) 
Brues, C. T. and A. L. Melander. 1932. Classification of Insects. Bull. Mus. 

comp. Zool. Harv. 73 : 1-672 
, Melander, A. L. and Carpenter, F. M. 1954. Classification of Insects. 

Revised edition. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv. 108 : 1-917 
CoLYER, C. N., and Hammond, C. O. 1951. Flies of the British Isles. Frederick 

Warne & Co., Ltd., London & New York : 1-383 
Enderlein, G. 1924. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Platystominen. Mitt. zool. Mus. 

Berl. 11(1) : 99-153 
Fleming, J. 1821. Insects. In Stewart, D., et al., Napier, M., ed. Supplement to 

4th, 5lh and 6th editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Vol. 5, pt. 1. Edinburgh: 

A. Constable & Co. (Date of July, 1821 is given in Vol. 6, p. 837, note; author- 
ship is given in list of contributors in Vol. 1). 
Fleming, J. 1 822. The philosophy of zoology, or a general view of the structure, 

functions, and classification of animals. 2 vols. Edinburgh: A. Constable & Co. 
Frev, R. 1921. Studien iiber den Bau des Mundes der niederen Diptera Schizo- 

phora nebst Bemerkungen iiber die Systematik dieser Dipterengruppe. Acta 

Soc. Fauna Flora fenn. 48 (3) : 1-245, pis. 1-10 

1964. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der ostasiatischen Platystomiden (Diptera). 

Notul. ent. 44 : 1-19, 3 unnumbered pis. 

Harrison, R. A. 1959. Acalyptrate Diptera of New Zealand. Bull. N.W. Dept. 

scient. ind. Res. 128 : i-viii, 1-382 
Hendel, F. 1914a. Die Arten der Platystominen. Abh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 8 (1) : 

1-409, pis. 1^ 

1914b. Diptera, Fam. Muscaridae, Subfam. Platystominae. Genera Insect. 

157 : 1-179, pis. 1-15 

Hennig, W. 1945. Platystomidae. In Linder, E., Fliegen palaearkt. Reg. 5 (Fam. 

48, Lfg. 155) : 1-56, pis. 1-3 
Malloch, J. R. 1939. The Diptera of the Territory of New Guinea. VII. Family 

Otitidae (Ortalidae). Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S. fV. 64 : 97-144, pis. 4-5 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61 

ScHiNER, I. R. 1862. Vorlaufiger Commentar zum dipterologischen Theile der 
"Fauna austriaca." IV. Wien. ent. Monatschr. 6 : 143-152 

1868. Diptera. In [WiJlIerstorf-Urbair, B. von, ed.] Reise der dsterreicliischen 

Fregatte Novara. Zool., Vol. 2, Abt. 1, [Sect.] B. 388 pp., 4 pis. Wien 

SteuY, E. 1934. Dipteres Brachyceres (Muscidae Acalypterae et Scatophagidae). 

Faiine Fr. 28 : 832 pp 
Walker, F. 1857. Catalogue of the Dipterous insects collected at Singapore and 

Malacca by Mr. A. R. Wallace, with descriptions of new species. J. Proc. Linn. 

Soc. {Zool.) 1 : 4-39, pis. 1-2 

1858-1859. Catalogue of the Dipterous insects collected in the Aru Islands 

by Mr. A. R. Wallace, with descriptions of new species. /. Proc. Linn. Soc. 
(Zool) 3 : 77-110 

1864. Catalogue of the Dipterous insects collected in Waigiou, Mysol, and 

North Ceram by Mr. A. R. Wallace, with descriptions of new species. J. Proc. 
Linn. Soc. (Zool.) 7 : 202-238 

Wiedemann, C. R. W. 1830. Aussereuropaische zweifliigelige Insekten. Vol. 2. 
xii+684pp., pis. 7-lOb. Hamm. 



62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

PHAGOCATA CORNUTA SHISHKOV, 1903 (PLATYHELMINTHES : 

TURBELLARIA): REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE 

PLENARY POWERS Z.N.(S.) 2055 

By R. Kenk (Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural 
History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560) 

1. Phagocata cornuta was established by G. Shishkov (actually trans- 
literated from the Bulgarian as Chichkoff) in a paper "Paru le 15 Decembre 
1903". It was mentioned again by Shishkov in 1906 (p. 82) who stated that 
Mrazek's Planaria montenigrina was a synonym o{ Phagocata cornuta. Bresslau 
(1904) and Steinmann (1908 : 682) also considered the two species to be identical. 
Phagocata cornuta was again mentioned briefly by Shishkov (1925 : 114,119) 
and was included in a faunal list by Valkanov (1934 : 18). Valkanov's paper 
(1934 : 27) also lists Planaria montenegrina as an apparently different species. 
A later publication by Valkanov (1938) mentions only Planaria montenegrina. 
Only the two papers by Shishkov (1903 and 1906) contain original contributions, 
the remaining papers are listings or statements regarding synonymy. 

2. Planaria montenigrina was described as a new species by A. Mrazek in 
a paper presented at a society meeting on 12 June 1903. The volume containing 
the society proceedings for 1903 is dated 1904, but individual papers (each with 
independent paging) may have been issued beforehand, a fact which is now 
difficult to ascertain (Mrazek himself quotes the paper as 1904). The name 
montenigrina (or a variant spelling montenegrina) in various combinations 
(Planaria m., Planaria alpina m., Grenobia alpina m.) has been used in over 70 
publications, some of which deal with morphological, physiological, ecological, 
or biogeographical relations of the taxon. The most outstanding papers are 
the following: Mrazek (1907), Stankovic (1924, 1934, 1960), Stankovic & 
Komarek (1927), Meixner (1928), de Beauchamp (1932), Codreanu (1956), 
Stella (1957), and Gourbault (1972). 

3. In view of the foregoing situation, I hereby request the International 
Commission: — 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the Law of Priority but not 

for the Law of Homonymy, the name cornuta Shishkov, 1903, as 
published in the binomen Phagocata cornuta: 

(2) to place the name montenigrina Mrazek, 1904, as published in the 

binomen Planaria montenigrina, on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology; 

(3) to place the name cornuta Shishkov, 1903, suppressed in (1) above on 

the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

Literature Cited 

Beauchamp, P. de. 1932. Turbellaries, hirudinees, brachiobdellides, deuxieme 

serie. Archs. Zool. exp. gen. 73 : 113-380, pi. 6-8 
Bresslau, E. 1904. [Abstracts of G. Chichkoff and A. Mrazek]. Zool. Zentbl. 

11 : 368-369 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63 

Chichkoff, G. 1903. See Shishkov, G., 1903 

CoDREANU, R. 1956. La dispersion d'une planaire polypharyngee {Crenobia alpina 

montenigrina Mrazek, 1903) dans les Carpathes meridionales. Anal. Inst. Cere. 

pise. 1 : 385-399 
GouRBAULT, N. 1972. Recherches sur les triclades paludicoles hypoges. Mem. 

Mus. natn. Hist. nat. Paris {Ser. A) (Zool.) 73 : 249 pp., 3 pi. 
Meixner, J. 1928. Der Genitalapparat der Tricladen und seine Beziehungen zu 

ihrer allgemeinen Morphologie, Phylogenie, Okologie und Verbreitung. 

Z. Morph. 6l<ol. Tiere 11 : 570-612 
MrAzek, a. 1904. Ober eine neue polypharyngeale Planarienart aus Montenegro 

iPl. montenigrina n.sp.). Sber. I<. bohrn. Ges. Wiss. Math.- nat. Kl. 1903 (33) : 

24 p., 4 pi. 

1907. Eine zweite polypharyngeale Planarienform aus Montenegro. Sber. 

K. Bohm. Ges. Wiss. Matli.-nat. Kl. 1906 (32) : 18 p., 1 pi. 

Shishkov, G. 1903. (Chickhoff, G.) Sur une nouvelle espece du genre Phagocata 
Leidy. Archs. Zool. exp. gen. {Serie 4) 1 : 401^09, pi. 16 

1906. Notes on freshwater triclads found up to now in Bulgaria). God. sof. 

Univ. 2 : 68-82 

1925. (Sur quelques especes de triclades d'eau douce de la Bulgarie). God. 

sof. Univ. 20 : 113-120, pi. 2 

StankovkJ, S. 1924. (Sur la distribution geographique et la biologic des planaires 
des sources et des ruisseaux en Serbie). Glas srp. kralj. Al<ad. 113 : 41-88, 1 pi. 

1934. Ober die Verbreitung und Okologie der Quellentricladen auf der 

Balkanhalbinsel. Zoogeografica, 2 : 147-203, pi. 1-3 

1960. The Balkan lake Ohrid and its living world. Monographiae biol. 

9 : 357 pp. 

StankoviC, S., and Komarek, J. 1927. Die Susswasser-Tricladen des Westbalkans 
und die zoogeographischen Probieme dieser Gegend. Zool. Jb. (Abteiliing fiir 
Systematili Okologie und Geographie der Tiere) 53 : 591-674, pi. 7-9 

Steinmann, p. 1908. Die polypharyngealen Planarienformen und ihre Bedeutung 
fur die Deszendenztheorie, Zoogeographie und Biologie. Int. Revue ges. 
Hydrobiol. Hydrogr. 1 : 679-690 

Stella, E. 1957. Prime osservazioni su una planaria polifaringea rinvenuta nella 
sorgente Peschiera. Boll. Zool. 24 : 227-234 

Valkanov, a. 1934. Beitrag zur Hydrofamia Bulgariens. 32 p., 1 map. Sofiia 

1938. Hydrobiologische Untersuchungen an einigen Hochgebirgsseen Bul- 
gariens. God. sof Univ. 34 (3) : 101-145 



"1974 




64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

OBSERVATIONS ON LEMCHE'S COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED 

PRESERVATION OF EUDYPTES SCLATERI BULLER, 1888 AND 

EUDYPTES ROBUSTUS OLIVER, 1953. Z.N.(S.) 1893 

(See vol. 28: 92-93; vol. 29: 43) 

By George Watson (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institu- 
tion, Washington, D.C. 20560, USA) 

I agree with Henning Lemche's modification (Bull. 29: 43) of my proposal 
concerning the preservation of Eudyptes sclateri BuUer, 1888 and Eudyptes 
robustus Oliver, 1953 (vol. 28: 92-93) and in particular the suppression of 
Eudyptes atratus Finsch, 1875. The loss of the type of atratus and the other- 
wise pecuhar characters shown in the extant plate of the type, in Buller (1888 
History of Birds of New Zealand, vol. 2, plate opp., p. 294), as pointed out by 
Oliver (1953, Emu 53: 185-187), make it undesirable to retain the availability 
of atratus even provisionally. Incidently the name Eudyptes atratus was 
originally attributed to Hutton by Finsch (1875, Ibis: 114) who published 
Mutton's manuscript name. It also appears attributed to Hutton by Buller 
(loc. cit.), by Falla (1935, Rec. Auckland Inst. Mus. 1: 322-325), and by Oliver 
(1953; 1955 A'eu' Zealand Birds, 2nd Edition: 75-78) but the attribution is 
changed to Finsch in the Checklist of New Zealand Birds (Fleming 1953: 15). 
The citation of authorship in such cases, at least under Article 1 Id of the 
Rules, is still in question (Sabrosky, Bull. 30: 95-96). I therefore urge the 
Commission to adopt the proposals as modified by Lemche. 



Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. 



INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

A. The Honorary Life President 

The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman) 

B. The Members of the Trust 

The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merton, P.C, C.H. 

Mon. M. J. Forest 

Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. 

(Secretary and Managing Director) 
Dr. N. E. Hickin 
Dr. L. B. Hohhuis 
Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. 
Prof. Dr. O. Kraus 
Mr. R. V. Melville 
Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. 
Dr. N. R. Stoll 
Mr. C. W. Wright, C.B. 
Dr. G. F. de Witte 

C. The Officers of the Trust 

Margaret Green, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant) 

CONTENTS 

(continued from front wrapper) 



Opinions 

Opinion 1014 (OArema Menke, 1830) 
Opinion 1015 (Solenius Lepeletier & BruUe, 1834) 
Opinion 1016 (Cribrilina punctata HassaW, 1841) .. 
Opinion 1017 (7/->'c/!0JW Foerster, 1868) .. 
Opinion 1018 (Polanisa Walker, 1875) 



13 
16 
19 

22 
24 



New Cases 

Hypacanlus Rafinesque, 1810 (Pisces, Carangidae): request for suppres- 
sion under the plenary powers (E. Tortonese) . . 27 

Resubmission of Pan Oken, 1816 and Panthera Oken, 1816 (Mammalia) 
proposed conservation under the plenary powers (G. B. Corbet, 
J. E. Hill, J. M. Ingles and P. H.Napier) 29 

Application for the suppression of Delphinus pernettensis de Blainvilie, 

1827 and Delphinus pernettyi Desmarest, 1820 (P. J. H. van Bree) . . 44 

Sesarma trapezium Dana, 1852 (Crustacea: Decapoda): proposed 

suppression under the plenary powers (Lawrence Abele) 49 



CONTENTS U Pt**.-^''''" "''^ i 

{continued from inside back wrapper) " . Page 

Loligo stearnsii Hemphill, 1892 (MoUusca, Cephalopoda): reque'Stfor 

suppression under the plenary powers (Gilbert Voss) . . 51 

Cyclogyra Wood, 1842 (Foraminiferida) : proposal for suppression 

under the plenary powers (Richard W. Ponder) 54 

PLATYSTOMATiDAE Schiner, 1862: proposed conservation as a family- 
group name over achiidae Fleming, 1821 (Insecta, Diptera) 
(George C. Steyskal & David K. McAlpine) . . 59 

Phagocata cornuta Shishkov, 1903 (Platyhelminthes; Turbellaria) : 

request for the suppression under the plenary powers (R. Kenk) . . 62 



Comments 

Previously unpublished comments on the use of the plenary powers to 
stabilise the names of the North European species belonging to the 
Tipula oleracea-gxo\xp within the genus Tipula Linnaeus, 1758 (Class 
Insecta, Order Diptera) (C. P. Alexander, A. M. Hemmingsen & 
H. Lemche, P. Brinck, H. Lemche, B. Tjeder, A. M. Hutson & 
R. I. Vane- Wright) 5 

Comment on the proposed suppression of the name Galaxias delfini 

Philippi, 1895 (Pisces, Galaxiidae)(H. Lemche) 8 

Addition to the application concerning the suppression of Diomedea 

fe/7?or/i>'/;c/!aCoues, 1866 (George Watson) .. 8 

Comment on the proposed suppression ofParaonis Grube, 1872 in favour 
of Paraonis Cerruti, 1909 under the plenary powers (P. Uschakov & 
V. Strelkov) 9 

Comment and request for a Declaration on proposal for an amendment 

to Article 33a of the International Code (Eugene Eisenmann) 10 

Comment on the problem of the type-species of the genus Lucina 

(MoUusca: Pelecypoda) (H. Lemche) . . 10 

Comment on the request for the designation of a type-species of Tutufa 

Jousseaume, 1881 (H. A. Rehder) II 

Observations on Lemche's comment on the proposed preservation of 
Eudyptes sclateri Buller, 1888 and Eudyptes robustus Oliver, 1953 
(George Watson) . . . . . . . . 64 



C' 1974. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 
Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at The George Press. Kettering Northamptonshire 




Volume 31, Part 2 \k.^*'io ., / 14th August, 1974 

pp. 65-102 



THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 



The Official Organ of 

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Contents 

Page 
Report of Special Session held at Ustaoset, Norway, September, 1973 . . 66 

Appendix A: 

The status of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature . . . . . . 71 

Appendice A : 

Le statut de la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoolo- 
gique 70 

(continued inside back wrapper) 



LONDON: 

Printed by Order of the International Trust for 

Zoological Nomenclature 

and 

Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological 

Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 

c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, 

London, SW7 SBD 

1974 

Price Three Pounds 

{All rights reserved) 



INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 

NOMENCLATURE 

A. The Officers of the Commission 

President: Dr. W. D. L. Ride (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 

August 1963) 
Vice-President: Dr. L. B. HoLTHUis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The 

Net/ierlands) (28 August 1963) 
Secretary: Mr. R. V. Melville (Institute of Geological Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, 

5. W, 7) (30 January 1968) 

B. The Members of the Commission 

(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) 
Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Gerwva, Italy) (16 December 

1954). Pisces; Echinodermata 
Professor Per Brinck (Lunds Universitels Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958). 

Artbropoda, ecology 
Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958). 

Opisthobranchia; Phylogeny 
Professor Dr. Raphael Alvarado (Museo Naciotml de Ciencias Maturates, Madrid, Spain) 

(31 May 1960). Ecbinoidea, Asteroidea 
Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, 

Canada) (9 June 1961). Entomology, Zoogeograpby 
Professor E. Binder (Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962). 

MoUusca 
Professor Harold E. Yokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, 

Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Molliisca 
Dr. L. B. HoLTHUiS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) 

(28 August 1963) (Vice-President). Crustacea 
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Ornithology; Evolution 
Prof. Dr. Otto Kraus (Zoologisches Institul und Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg, Germany) 

(28 August 1963) (Councillor). Arachnida, Myriapoda 
Dr. W. D. L. Ride (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) 

(President). Mammalia; Recent and Fossil 
Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, 

Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Diptera; Systematics 
Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Department of Geology, University of Arizona, Tucson, 

Arizona, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mammalia 
Dr. Eugene Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York 10024, 

U.S.A.) (30 January 1968). Ornithology 
Mr. R. V. Melville (Institute of Geological Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, S. W.l.) (30 

January 1968) (Secretary). Palaeontology 
Dr. Y. LStarobogatov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) 

(30 January 1968). Mollusca, Crustacea 
Professor F. M. Bayer (Institute of Marine Science, University of Miami, Florida 33149, U.S.A.) 

(20 February 1972). Octocorallia; Systematics 
Dr. John O. Corliss (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (20 

February 1972). Protozoa; Systematics 
Prof. Dr. H. K. Erben (Institul fiir Paldontologie, Universitdt Bonn, 53 Bonn, Germany) (20 

February 1972). Invertebrate Palaeontology 
Professor T. Habe (National Science Museum, Ueno Park, Tokyo, Japan) (20 February 1972). 

Marine Biology 
Mr. David Heppell (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh 

EH\ \JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972). Mollusca 
Dr. I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7S BD) (20 

February 1972). Lepidoptera 
Prof. A. V/iLUNK(Instiluto Miguel Lillo, Tucuman, Argentina) (20 FebTuary 1972). Neotropical 

Hymenoptera 
Prof. B. B. Rohdendorf (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S.S.R.) 

(21 July 1972). Insecta Palaeontology 
Prof. G. Bernardi (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). 

Lepidoptera 
Dr. C. Din>ius (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). 

Diptera 
Dr. T. Jaczewski (Zoological Institute. Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (re-instated 

5 November 1973). Heraiptera 



BllllETIX OF ZOOIOGICAL NOMENCIATURE 



Volume 31, Part 2 (pp. 65-102) 14th August 1974 



DslTRODUCTORY NOTE 

In Volume 30, Double Part 3/4, page 1 30 of this Bulletin, it was announced 
that the Commission had decided to set aside a special number of the Bulletin 
for the report of the Special Meeting of the Commission held on the occasion of 
the XVIIl General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences 
at Ustaoset, Norway, and for the English and French texts of the amendments 
to the Code adopted by the XVII International Congress of Zoology at Monaco 
in 1972. This special number was also to contain the French and Enghsh texts 
of the Constitution of the Commission. 

This is that special number of the Bulletin. The report of the Special 
Meeting of the Commission includes under Appendix A the essential documents 
concerning the decisions taken by the General Assembly of I.U.B.S. affecting the 
status of the Commission, namely: 

Appendix A, para 8. Two resolutions on the status of the Commission. 
Annex A.l. Statutes of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature of the 

Division of Zoology of I.U.B.S. 
Annex A. 2. Revised Statutes of the Division of Zoology of I.U.B.S. 
The texts of the amendments to the Code and of the Constitution of the 
Commission follow after the report and are prefaced by a separate note. 




66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 

Report of Special Session held at Ustaoset, Norway, 
September 1973 (Z.N.(G.) 166) 

By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

AGENDA 

A. Special Business: 

L Mode of operation of the Commission while operating under I.U.B.S. 
through the delegated authority of the International Congress of Zoology. 

2. Structure and form of Section on Nomenclature. 

3. Joint discussions with I.U.B.S. to obtain agreement on the mode of 
operation of the Commission under I.U.B.S. 

4. Preparation of a report by the Commission on mode of operation under 
I.U.B.S. for pubhcation in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 

B. General Business: 

1 . Report of matters arising out of the Boulder Congress. 

2. Committee to prepare revised draft of 3rd Edition of Code and Con- 
stitution — discussion of terms of reference and nature of revision. 

3. Discussion of motions for amendments to the Code deferred from the 
Monaco Congress. {Bull. 29, pts 2 and 4.) 

4. Discussion of the role of ail hoc committees and advisers to assist with 
cases under consideration. 

5. Elections between congresses — discussion re voting paper currently 
before the Commission for a vote on the election of a member of the Commis- 
sion. 

1 . The following members attended the Special Session : Ride (President), 
Holthuis (Vice-President), Sabrosky (Member of Council), Bayer, Bernard!, 
Binder, Corhss, Dupuis, Habe, Lemche, Nye and the Secretary. 

2. Apologies for absence were received from Brinck, Mayr, Rohdendorf, 
Tortonese and Willink. 

3. A closed meeting of the Commission was held on 28 and 29 September. 
The President (Dr. Ride) welcomed new members of the Commission and 
explained the status of the Session as a Special Session of the Commission 
(Constitution, Article 1 1 (b)). The Agenda, as given above, had been prepared 
by the President, agreed by the Council, and distributed to all members of the 
Commission by the Secretary on 23 August 1973. 

4. The President went on to explain that the Session could discuss matters 
not on the agenda, provided that no conclusions were recorded. He proposed 
that two such matters be admitted for discussion : 

(a) guidance to the Secretary in answering an enquiry on a particular case; 

(b) new proposals from the floor of any open meeting for discussions on the 

Code held by the Commission during the Session. 
The President's proposals were accepted. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67 

5. The subjects listed under Agenda Section A, Special Business were then 
presented by the President, as follows: 

A(l) The President explained that the Commission had no status within the 
International Union of Biological Sciences (I.U.B.S.); it existed by 
virtue only of the relevant provisions in the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature and the Constitution of the Commission. 
I.U.B.S. as such exerted no authority over the Commission. 

A(2) The Council of the Commission, represented by the quorum of three 
members present at Ustaoset, had resolved to ask the General 
Assembly of I.U.B.S. (then being held at Ustaoset) to delegate to 
its own Division of Zoology the authority delegated to the Union 
by the XVII International Congress of Zoology (Monaco, 1972). 

A(3) The Division of Zoology had agreed to set up a Section on Zoological 
Nomenclature. The statutes of this Section were being prepared by 
a committee which included members of the Council and the 
Secretary of the Commission, for approval by the Division on the 
following day. The President explained that the Statutes of the 
Division of Zoology were being amended to provide that the 
President (or his interim replacement during a General Assembly) 
and the Secretary of the Commission should be members of the 
Board of the Division. 

A(4) A subcommittee composed of Monsieur Bernardi, Dr. Corliss and the 
Secretary was appointed to prepare a report on the preceding items, 
in Enghsh and in French, for publication in the Bulletin. Their 
report forms Appendix A to this document. 

6. The meeting agreed to discuss the subjects included in Section B, 
General Business, in the order (5), (1), (2), (4). Item B(3) would be deferred 
for discussion in an open meeting on 30 September, when other zoologists 
present at the General Assembly could take part. 

B(5) The President explained that, by an administrative oversight, Dr. 
Tadeusz Jaczewski had not been nominated for re-election at the 
Monaco Congress. Under a strict interpretation of the Constitu- 
tion, no action could be taken to fill the place thus left vacant until 
the next Congress. There was, however, evidence that Polish 
zoologists were concerned at the situation and that the good name 
of the Commission in Poland was in danger. He therefore 
proposed : 
(i) that the Special Session recommend to the Commission 
(through a one-month vote) that Dr. Jaczewski be reinstated 
as though he had been re-elected at Monaco, on the grounds 
that the present Constitution makes no provision for the 
correcting of administrative errors; 
(ii) that a proposal to amend the Constitution accordingly be 

submitted to the next Congress; 
(iii) that on Dr. Jaczewski's retirement under the age-limit in 
February 1974, the vacancy be filled under the provisions of 



68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

the Constitution, and that Polish nominees would be among 
those considered for election. 
The President's proposals were accepted. 

B(l) The Secretary's report on the First International Congress of Sys- 
tematic and Evolutionary Biology held at Boulder, Colorado, in 
August 1973, which had already been circulated to all members of 
the Commission, was presented. Discussion centred on the pro- 
posal that had been put forward there by Professor Brinck for wider 
and easier dissemination of news about the Commission and its 
activities. The following steps were agreed upon: 
(i) to approach the editors of Systematic Zoology with a request 
for space to publish news about the Commission, including 
announcements of new cases with cross-references to the 
Bulletin; the attention of readers would particularly be drawn 
to discussions of wider issues in the Bulletin ; 
(ii) if the above request was granted, to send a notice for publica- 
tion in various journals that news of the Commission's 
activities would be found in Systematic Zoology; 
(iii) to send announcements of the publication of Opinions to the 
same journals to which notices of the possible use of the 
plenary powers in the same cases had been sent. 
B(2) The President explained that he had appointed an Editorial Committee 
to prepare the Third Edition of the Code, consisting of the following: 
himself and Dr. Key; Dr. Sabrosky and Dr. Coriiss; M. Bernardi 
and M. Forest; the Secretary and Mr. C. W. Wright. The first- 
named in each pair would be responsible for conducting the corres- 
pondence of the pair and would keep his partner in constant touch 
with the work of the committee. After discussion, the following 
steps were agreed: 

(i) to publish as soon as possible, as a special number of the 
Bulletin, the amendments to the Code adopted at Monaco 
(including the questions deferred from the Washington 
(1963) Congress) and the amended Constitution, all in both 
English and French; 
(ii) to prepare a third edition of the Code for approval by the next 
Congress (i.e. the Division of Zoology of I.U.B.S. at the 
General Assembly in 1976) to incorporate (a) amendments 
deferred from the Monaco Congress, already published in 
Vol. 29 of the Bulletin; (b) amendments proposed from the 
floor of the open meeting to be held at Ustaoset and accepted 
by the Special Session; (c) proposals by members of the 
Commission for the removal of ambiguities or points of 
doubtful interpretation, and for examples to illustrate existing 
and new clauses in the Code, if sent to the Secretary before 
31 December 1973; (d) to appoint Professor Holthuis 
(Chairman), M. Dupuis and Dr. Nye as a Working Party to 
revise the Glossary and Index to the Code (with authority to 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 

ask the President to appoint a separate Working Party on 
the Index if necessary). 

B(4) There was discussion of the need for speciaHst committees to examine 
cases on which no comments had been received, or where there was 
reason to think that the information provided was incomplete. It 
was pointed out that the Secretary's task was to ensure that applica- 
tions put to the Commission were internally consistent and that the 
proposals for action by the Commission were clear and intelligible. 
He was invited to distribute examples of what he considered well- 
drafted applications. Each member of the Commission would be 
asked to tell the Secretary of the fields within which he (the member) 
could find trustworthy sources of advice. Members would be 
further asked to read each number of the Bulletin on receipt, to 
consult their advisers as they thought fit, and to send any remarks 
to the Secretary before the close of the period for comments. 

B(3) Proposals for amendments to the Code published in Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 29, pts 2 and 4 which had been deferred from the Monaco 
(1972) International Congress of Zoology were considered at an 
open meeting of the Commission held on 30 September and attended 
by other interested zoologists present at the General Assembly of 
I.U.B.S. There was also informal discussion of matters raised on 
the floor of the meeting. The result was a series of proposals 
accepted by the Special Meeting of the Commission (which had, of 
course, no authority to adopt them as amendments to the Code) 
and referred to an Editorial Committee to be set up by the President 
of the Commission with the task of preparing a Third Edition of the 
Code. The necessary draft amendments accepted by the Special 
Meeting, with other proposals already before the Commission, will 
be published in the Bulletin before being presented to the Division 
of Zoology of I.U.B.S. at the 1976 General Assembly for ratification. 



70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

APPENDICE A 

Le Statut de la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique 

1 . Cette section du rapport donne un compte rendu des decisions touchant 
le statut de la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique prises 
lors de la XVIIIe Assemblee Generale de I'Union Internationale des Sciences 
Biologiques a Ustaoset, Norvege, 1973. 

2. Le statut de la Commission est defini par le Code International de 
Nomenclature Zoologique et par la Constitution de la Commission. Le XVIIe 
Congres International de Zoologie (Monaco, 1972) a invite I'U.I.S.B. a accepter 
I'autorite qui avait ete jusqu'alors exercee par les Congres sur la Commission et 
sur le Code. 

3. L' Assemblee Generale de I'U.I.S.B., tout en acceptant I'invitation du 
Congres de Monaco, a reconnu que deux etapes devaient etre franchies avant 
qu'une seance pleniere d'un Congres International de Zoologie put donner une 
approbation formelle a toute decision en matiere de nomenclature zoologique: 
premierement une proposition devait etre consideree par la Commission; 
deuxiemement cette proposition devait etre presentee par la Commission au 
Congres par I'intermediaire de la Section de Nomenclature du Congres. L' As- 
semblee Generale a done cherche un moyen de fournir des mecanismes corres- 
pondant a la seance pleniere d'un Congres et a la Section de Nomenclature du 
Congres. 

4. Le premier de ces mecanismes a ete fourni par la decision de I'Assemblee 
Generale, agissant en vertu des dispositions de I'Article 76(c)(i) du Code, de 
deleguer a sa Division de Zoologie I'autorite qu'elle avait re?ue du Congres. Le 
deuxieme mecanisme a ete fourni par la decision de la Division de Zoologie de 
I'U.I.S.B. de constituer une Section de Nomenclature qui fonctionnera pendant 
les reunions de chaque Assemblee Generale de I'Union, reconnaissant cette 
Section comme une partie permanente de la structure de la Division. 

5. Les statuts de la Section de Nomenclature Zoologique (en tant que 
Section de la Division de Zoologie de I'U.I.S.B.) sont presentes dans I'Annexe 
A.l a ce rapport. Ces derniers ont ete prepares par un comite de redaction qui 
comprenait trois membres du Conseil et le Secretaire de la Commission. En 
meme temps les statuts de la Division ont ete revises en ce sens qu'ils stipulent 
que le President et le Secretaire de la Commission seront membres du Bureau 
de la Division. Si le President est empeche d'assister a une Assemblee Generale 
de I'U.I.S.B., sa place au Bureau pendant la duree de cette Assemblee pent 
etre tenue par le Vice-President ou par un membre du Conseil de la Com- 
mission d'apres les dispositions de I'Article 11 B des Statuts de la Commission. 

6. L'efiet de ces decisions est que la Commission Internationale de 
Nomenclature Zoologique a un statut independant sous I'egide de I'U.I.S.B. 
Les decisions concernant le Code et la Constitution seront prises seulement par 
des zoologistes, quelle que soit la division de I'Union a laquelle ils sont affilies. 

7. La Commission s'est accorde a reconnaitre a I'unanimite qu'il est 
desirable de favoriser les contacts avec les zoologistes par tons les moyens 
possibles et particulierement par la presence de ses membres aux Congres 
ressortissant du domaine general de la Zoologie, ou ils pourraient agir en tant 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71 

APPENDIX A 

The Status of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

1 . This section of the report gives an account of the decisions affecting the 
status of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature taken at 
the XVIII General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences 
at Ustaoset, Norway, 1973. 

2. The status of the Commission is defined by the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature and by the Constitution of the Commission. The 
XVII International Congress of Zoology (Monaco, 1972) invited I.U.B.S. to 
accept the authority over the Commission and the Code which had until then 
been exercised by the Congresses. 

3. The General Assembly of I.U.B.S., while accepting the invitation of the 
Monaco Congress, recognized that two preparatory stages had to be completed 
before a plenary session of an International Congress of Zoology could give its 
formal approval to any decision in matters of zoological nomenclature : first, 
a proposition had to be considered by the Commission; secondly, that pro- 
position had to be presented to the Congress by the Commission through the 
Section on Nomenclature of the Congress. The I.U.B.S. therefore sought for a 
means of providing mechanisms corresponding to the plenary session of a 
Congress and the Section on Nomenclature of a Congress. 

4. The first of these mechanisms was provided by the decision of the 
General Assembly, under the provisions of Article 76(c)(i) of the Code, to 
delegate the authority that it had received from the Congress to its Division of 
Zoology. The second mechanism was provided by the decision of the Division 
of Zoology of I.U.B.S. to set up, to function during the meetings of each 
General Assembly of the Union, a Section on Zoological Nomenclature, 
recognising this Section as a permanent part of the structure of the Division. 

5. The statutes of the Section on Zoological Nomenclature (as a Section of 
the Division of Zoology of I.U.B.S.) form Annex A.l to this report. The latter 
were prepared by a drafting committee which included three members of the 
Council and the Secretary of the Commission. At the same time, the statutes 
of the Division of Zoology (Annex A. 2) were revised so as to provide that the 
President and Secretary of the Commission should be members of the Board 
of the Division. If the President of the Commission is unable to attend a 
General Assembly of I.U.B.S., his place on the Board for the duration of that 
Assembly may be taken by the Vice-President or by a member of the Council 
of the Commission under Article IIB of the By-Laws of the Commission. 

6. The effect of these decisions is that the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature has independent status under the aegis of I.U.B.S. 
Decisions concerning the Code and the Constitution and membership of the 
Commission will be taken only by zoologists, to whichever division of the 
Union they are affiliated. 

7. The Commission agreed unanimously on the desirability of promoting 
contacts with zoologists by all possible means, and especially through the 
attendance of members at congresses in the general field of zoology where they 
could act as rapporteurs for the Commission. It also agreed to send items of 



72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

que rapporteurs de la Commission. EUe est aussi d'accord d'envoyer des 
elements d'information sur la Commission, sur les cas en instance et sur les 
decisions prises, pour publication dans d'autres revues largement diffusees 
parmi les zoologistes, aussi bien que dans le Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 
8. Le texte des deux resolutions adoptees par la XVIIIe Assemblee Generale 
suit: 

(1) La XVIIIe Assemblee Generale de TUnion Internationale des Sciences 

Biologiques: 

Prenant acte de la resolution du XVIIe Congres International de 

Zoologie invitant I'Union Internationale des Sciences Biologiques a 

accepter I'autorite sur la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature 

Zoologique et sur le Code Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique 

qui avait ete exercee auparavant par les Congres Internationaux de 

Zoologie ; 

Decide que I'Union Internationale des Sciences Biologiques accepte 

cette autorite et la delegue a la Division de Zoologie de I'Umon 

Internationale des Sciences Biologiques. 

(2) Vu le caractere essentiel du travail de la Commission Internationale de 

Nomenclature Zoologique (C.I.N.Z.) et I'interruption, voire la termi- 
naison probable de Torganisme qui etait anciennement son parent, 
les Congres Internationaux de Zoologie, le comite des admissions et 
de la structure recommande I'etablissement d'une Section de Nomen- 
clature Zoologique a I'interieur de la Division de Zoologie. Le 
comite ad hoc voudrait exprimer son approbation du Comite Executif 
pour avoir pris les dispositions necessaires au transfert de la C.I.N.Z. 
et plus particulierement exprime ses compliments aux MM. Farner, 
Melville, Baer et Ride pour le travail soigneux qu'ils ont fait dans ce 
contexte. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73 

news about the Commission, and about cases pending and rulings adopted for 
publication in other journals of wide distribution among zoologists, as well as 
to the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 

8. The text of the two resolutions adopted by the XVIIIth General Assembly 
follows : 

(1) The General Assembly, noting the resolution of the XVHth International 

Congress of Zoology inviting the International Union of Biological 

Sciences to accept authority over the International Commission on 

Zoological Nomenclature and the International Code of Zoological 

Nomenclature; 

Resolves that I.U.B.S. accept this authority and delegate it to the 

Division of Zoology of I.U.B.S. 

(2) In view of the essential nature of the work of the International Com- 

mission on Zoological Nomenclature (I. C.Z.N.) and the interruption 
and probable termination of its former parent body, the International 
Congresses of Zoology, the committee on Admissions and Structure 
recommends the establishment of a Section on Zoological Nomen- 
clature in the Division of Zoology. The ad hoc committee wishes to 
commend the Executive Committee of I.U.B.S. for making the neces- 
sary arrangements for the transfer of I. C.Z.N, and further especially 
compliments Drs. Farner, Melville, Baer and Ride on their careful 
work in this connection. 



74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

ANNEX A.l 

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 
DIVISION OF ZOOLOGY 

Statutes of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature 

Article 1 — The Section constitutes the Section of Nomenclature as specified 
in Article 3 of the Statutes of the Division of Zoology. 

Article 2 — At each General Assembly of I.U.B.S. the Section of Nomen- 
clature of the Division of Zoology shall carry out the functions and duties of 
the Section of Nomenclature set out in the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature and in the Constitution of the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature. In particular the Section shall receive and discuss 
proposals from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and 
shall submit recommendations concerning them to the Division of Zoology of 
I.U.B.S. 

Article 3 — The members of the Section are: 

(a) Members of the Board of the Division of Zoology; 

(b) Members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

present at the General Assembly; 

(c) Any zoologists present at the General Assembly being members of 

national or other delegations, divisions, sections or commissions of 
the Union; 

(d) Any zoologists appointed by the Board of the Division of Zoology for 

that purpose. 

Article 4 — The Section may meet only between the opening of a General 
Assembly and the closing of that Assembly. 

Article 5 — There is no limit to the number of General Assemblies at which 
an individual may serve as a member of the Section. 

Article 6 — The Chairman of the Section shall be elected by the Section at its 
first meeting at any General Assembly. 

Article 7 — In elections to the International Commission of Zoological 
Nomenclature no one shall vote to fill a vacancy for which his own name is 
proposed. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75 

ANNEX A.2 

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 
DIVISION OF ZOOLOGY 

Revised Statutes of the Division of Zoology 

1 . Objects and composition of the Division 

Article 1 — The Division constitutes the Division of Zoology (Animal 
Biology) as recognized under Article 3 of Statutes of the International Union 
of Biological Sciences (I.U.B.S.). 

Article 2 — The objects of the Division are: 

(a) to promote the study of Zoological Sciences; 

(b) to initiate, facilitate and coordinate zoological research and other 

scientific activities involving zoological sciences in which international 
cooperation is expedient; 

(c) to ensure the discussion and dissemination of the results of cooperative 

research ; 

(d) to promote the organisation of international conferences and to assist 

the publication of their reports; 

(e) to ensure through a section of General Zoology the continuation and 

organisation of International Congresses. 

Article 3 — The Division comprises a number of Sections, Commissions and 
Committees set up in accordance with Articles 8 and 1 1 of the Statutes of 
I.U.B.S. A section is concerned with a particular discipHne in the Zoological 
Sciences. A Commission is a body charged with the study or execution of 
specified tasks. A Committee is a temporary organisation to study special 
problems. 

Article 4 — In addition to other Sections, the Division maintains a Section of 
General Zoology not based on any single international organisation. 

Article 5 — Any recognized international Association in a zoological disci- 
pline may obtain the status of Section by complying with Art. 8 of the Statutes 
of I.U.B.S. 

Article 6 — International organisations promoting zoological objectives and 
not recognized as Sections may be admitted as commissions or committees on 
proposal of the Board of the Division to the General Assembly of I.U.B.S. 

2. Board of the Division 

Article 7 — The General Assembly of I.U.B.S. elects the Board of the Divi- 
sion. The task of the Board is to conduct the affairs of the Division. 
Article 8 — The Board consists of: 

(a) at least two representatives of the Section of General Zoology; 

(b) the President and the Secretary of the International Commission on 

Zoological Nomenclature. At any meeting of the Board held during 
a General Assembly at which the President is not present, he shall be 
represented by the Vice-President or by the member of the Commission 
presiding over the meetings of the Commission in his place; 

(c) at least one representative of each other section; 



76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

(d) the zoologists who are members of the Executive Committee of I.U.B.S.; 

(e) a Chairman; 

(f ) a Vice-Chairman ; 

(g) a Secretary. 

The members sub a, c, e, f and g are elected for a period of three years by 
the General Assembly of I.U.B.S. and are re-eligible for further periods. It is 
however desirable to ensure as wide an international representation as possible 
through a reasonable amount of change of personnel. 

The members sub c are proposed by the International Associations 
concerned. 

The members sub d are elected in accordance with Article 10(c) of the 
Statutes of I.U.B.S. 

Vacancies arising between General Assemblies may be filled by the Board, 
subject to confirmation by the following General Assembly. 

3. Sections 

Article 9 — The affairs of each Section are managed by a board. The Board 
of the Section of General Zoology is elected by the Section itself, that of the 
other Sections by the international associations concerned. 

4. Finances 

Article 10 — The income of the Division is derived from grants made by or 
through I.U.B.S. 

5. General Provisions 

Article 11 — These statutes become valid by the sanction of the General 
Assembly of I.U.B.S. Amendments will also need the sanction of that 
Assembly. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77 

AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL 

NOMENCLATURE ADOPTED SINCE THE XVI INTERNATIONAL 

CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, WASHINGTON, 1963 

The amendments to the Code adopted since the XVI International Congress 
of Zoology, Washington, 1963, consist of Declaration 42, amending Article 26 
and published in 1966 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : 198-200 (reported to the 
Monaco Congress, Bull. 29 : 72-3; ratified by that Congress, ibid.: 180); and 
of a series of amendments discussed at and adopted by the Monaco (1972) 
Congress (/6/V/. ; 180-189). 

These amendments are presented here exactly as adopted. An amendment 
that bears the same indexing as an existing provision of the Code simply 
replaces that provision in toto (e.g. Article 1 1(b)). Others (e.g. Article 1 l(b)(ii) 
are additions to the existing text and are provided with sufficient indexing to 
indicate where they should be placed in the Code. Deletions of existing provi- 
sions are indicated separately. 

The existing numbering of Articles and Sections has been retained intact. 

CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION 

The Constitution of the Commission adopted by the Washington (1963) 
Congress was pubfished in Bull. 21 ; 181-185, 1964. It is here printed in full, 
not only because the amendments to it are necessarily extensive, but also because 
it has been re-arranged to correspond in lay-out with the Code, to which it 
forms an Appendix. 



78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

PRfiAMBULE (premier alinea) 

Le Code International de Nomenclature Zoologique est le systeme de 

regies et de recommandations adoptees par les Congres Internationaux de 

Zoologie et appliquees par la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature 
Zoologique. 

Article 11. Conditions generates requises 

(b) Langue. — Le nom doit etre latin ou latinise ou traite comme tel, ou, 
s'il s'agit d'une combinaison arbitraire de lettres, forme de fa?on a 
pouvoir etre traite comme un mot latin [VII]. 
(i) Les lettres "j", "k", "w" et "y" peuvent etre employees dans les 

noms zoologiques. 
(ii) Un mot grec ou d'origine non classique (y compris une combinaison 
arbitraire de lettres) est considere comme latinise aux fins de la 
nomenclature zoologique s'il est ecrit en lettres latines, meme si la 
terminaison n'est pas latinisee. 
Exemples. — Toxostoma et brachyrhynchos du grec; Pfrille de Tallemand; Abudefduf 
de I'arabe; boobook et ciiioll de I'australien aborigene; Gythemon. une combinaison 
arbitraire de lettres. 

(e) Noms du groupe-famille. — 

(ii) Un nom du groupe-famille dont le suffixe est incorrect est utilisable 
avec sa date et son auteur originaux mais avec un suffixe correctement 
forme [Art. 29]. 

(f) Noras du groupe-geru-e. — Un nom du groupe-genre doit etre un sub- 
stantif au nominatif singulier ou etre traite comme tel: 

(i) Les noms de groupes coUectifs sont traites comme des noms generi- 
ques au sens du present Code [Art. 42(c)]; 

(ii) Un nom uninominal propose pour une subdivision primaire d'un 
genre, meme si cette subdivision est designee par un terme tel que 
"section" ou "division", est considere comme un nom subgenerique 
et est utilisable en nomenclature s'il satisfait aux dispositons appro- 
priees de ce Chapitre [Art. 42(d)]. 

Article 13. Noms publics apres 1930. — 

(c) Exclusions. — Apres 1930 un nom propose seulement par "indication" 

suivant I'une des methodes enumerees dans TArticle 16(a), clauses 

(ii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) et (viii) n'est pas utilisable. 

Article 17. Conditions qui ne rendent pas un nom inutilisable. — 

[ajouter a la fin de la clause (2)]. 

. . . [pour I'application au cas des hybrides, voir Art. 24(c)]; ou 

Article 23. Loi de Priorite. — 

[Remplacer les sections (a) et (b) par]. 

(a-b) But. — La Loi de Priorite doit etre employee pour promouvoir la stab- 
ilite. Elle n'est pas destinee a contrarier I'usage, dans sa signification 
habituelle, d'un nom etabli depuis longtemps par I'introduction d'un 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79 

PREAMBLE (first paragraph) 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is the system of rules 
and recommendations adopted by the International Congresses of Zoology and 
administered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 



Article 11. General requirements. — 

(b) Language. — The name must be either Latin or latinized, or treated as 
such, or, if an arbitrary combination of letters, must be so constructed 
that it can be treated as a Latin word [Vll]. 

(i) The letters "j", "k", "w" and '"y" may be used in zoological names. 

(ii) A word of Greek or of non-classical origin (including an arbitrary 
combination of letters) is treated as latinized for the purposes of 
zoological nomenclature if it is written in Latin letters, even if the 
ending is not latinized. 
Example. — Toxostoma and brachyrliynchos from the Greek; Pfrille from the 
German; Abudefduf irom the Arabic; boobook and quail from the aboriginal Aus- 
tralian; Gythemon, an arbitrary combination of letters. 

(e) Names of the family-group. — 

(ii) A family-group name of which the suffix is incorrect is available 
with its original date and authorship, but with a correctly formed 
suffix [Art. 29]. 

(f ) Names of the genus-group. — A genus-group name must be a noun in the 
nominative singular or be treated as such. 

(i) Names for collective groups are treated as generic names in the 
meaning of the Code [Art. 42(c)]. 

(ii) A uninominal name proposed for a primary subdivision of a genus, 
even if the subdivision is designated by a term such as "section" or 
"division", is considered to be a subgeneric name and is available in 
nomenclature if it satisfies the relevant provisions of this Chapter 
[Art. 42(d)]. 

Article 13. Names published after 1930. — 

(c) Exclusions. — After 1930, a name proposed only by "indication" under 
any of the methods listed in Article 16(a), clauses (ii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) 
and (viii) is not available. 

Article 17. Conditions that do not prevent availability. — 

[Add to end of clause (2)]. 

. . . [for application in the case of hybrids see Art. 24(c)]; or 

Article 23. Law of Priority. — 

[Replace sections (a) and (b) by]. 

(a-b) Purpose. — The Law of Priority is to be used to promote stability and 
is not intended to be used to upset a long-established name in its accus- 
tomed meaning through the introduction of an unused name which is 



80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

nom inutilise qui est son synonyme plus ancien. Un zoologiste qui 
considere que I'application de la Loi de Priorite troublerait, a son avis, 
la stabilite ou runiversalite, ou serait une cause de confusion, doit 
maintenir I'usage existant et soumettre le cas a la Commission en vue 
d'une decision par I'exercice des pleins pouvoirs [Art. 79]. 

Article 24. Interpretation du nom le plus ancien. — 

(c) Noms du groupe-espece fondes sur des hybrides. — Un nom du groupe- 
espece qui est reconnu comme ayant ete fonde sur un hybride [Art. 17(2)] 
ne doit etre applique ni a Tune ni a Tautre des especes parentes. 



Article 26. Noms composes. — 

(d) Abbreviations dans les noms composes. — Un mot abrege formant une 

partie d'un nom compose doit etre ecrit en toutes lettres et uni au reste 

du nom. 
Exemples. — sanctijohannis et sanctaecatharinae, non i. johannis, st. Johannis, 
sti Johannis ou toute variante avec trait d'union telle que s.-johannis. 



Article 29. Formation des noms du groupe-famille. — 

(d) Radical incorrectement forme. — Un nom du groupe-famille propose 
avant 1961 et fonde sur un radical incorrectement forme ne doit pas 
etre amende pour cette raison s"il est en usage general. Les noms 
incorrectement formes proposes apres 1960 doivent etre corriges oil 
qu'ils se trouvent. 

Article 30. Accord en genre grammatical. — Un nom du groupe-espece, si 
c'est un adjectif au nominatif singulier, doit toujours etre accorde avec le nom 
generique avec lequel il se trouve combine et sa desinence doit etre changee, 
s'il y a lieu, lorsque I'espece est transferee a un autre genre. 

(i) Lorsque I'auteur originel d'un nom du groupe-espece n'a pas indique 
s'il considere le nom comme un substantif ou comme un adjectif 
et lorsque ce nom peut etre considere comme I'un ou comme I'autre 
et que la preuve de I'usage n'est pas decisive, ce nom doit etre 
traite comme un substantif en apposition avec le nom generique. 
(ii) Le genre grammatical d'un nom du groupe-genre est determine 
par les dispositions des Sections (a) et (b) de cet Article, 
(a) Noms du groupe-genre consistant ou finissant en un mot grec ou latin, ou 
finissant en un suffixe grec ou latin. — 

(i) 

(2) Un substantif de genre variable, masculin ou feminin, doit etre 
considere comme masculin, a moins que son auteur, en publiant 
le nom pour la premiere fois, ne precise qu'il est feminin ou ne le 
traite comme tel en le combinant a un nom adjectif du groupe- 
espece; il y a exception pour un nom du groupe-genre finissant 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81 

its senior synonym. A zoologist who considers that the application of 
the Law of Priority would in his judgement disturb stability or universality 
or cause confusion is to maintain existing usage and must refer the case 
to the Commission for a decision under the plenary powers [Art. 79]. 



Article 24. Interpretation of oldest name. — 

(c) Species-group names founded on hybrids. — A species-group name which 

is found to have been based on a hybrid [Art. 17(2)] must not be applied 

to either of the parental species. 



Article 26. Compound names. — 

(d) Abbreviations in compounds. — An abbreviated word forming part of a 
compound name is to be written in full and united with the remainder of 
the name. 
Examples. — sanctijohannis and sanctaecatharinae, not j. johannis, St. johannis. 
stijohannis or any hyphenated variant such as s.-johannis. 



Article 29. Formation of family-group names. — 

(d) Incorrectly formed stem. — A family-group name proposed before 1961 
based upon an incorrectly formed stem is not be be amended for that 
reason if it is in general current use. Incorrectly formed names published 
after 1960 are to be corrected wherever they are found. 



Article 30. Agreement in gender. — A species-group name, if an adjective in 
the nominative singular, must agree in gender with the generic name with which 
it is at any time combined, and its termination must be changed, if necessary, 
when the species is transferred to another genus. 

(i) Where the original author of a species-group name did not indicate 
whether he regarded the name as a noun or as an adjective, and 
where it may be regarded as either, and where the evidence of 
usage is not decisive, it is to be treated as a noun in apposition to 
the generic name, 
(ii) The gender of a genus-group name is determined by the provisions 
of Sections (a) and (b) of this Article, 
(a) Genus-group names consisting of or ending in a Greek or Latin word or 
ending in a Greek or Latin suffix. — 

(i) 

(2) A noun of variable gender, masculine or feminine, is to be 
treated as masculine, unless its author states, when he first 
publishes the name, that it is feminine, or so treats it in com- 
bination with an adjectival species-group name; except that a 
genus-group name ending in -ops is to be treated as masculine 



82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

en -ops qui doit etre traite comme masculia sans consideration de 
sa derivation ou de son traitement par son auteur originel. 
[Article 30(a)(i) et (a)(i)(2): supprimer les references a -ops des exemples.] 

Article 32. Orthographe originale. — 

(a) Orthographe originale correcte. — 

(ii) [si] la publication originale elle-meme, sans recours a aucune source 
externe d'information comporte manifestement une erreur d'inadver- 
tence, telle qu'un lapsus calami ou une erreur de copie ou d'impression 
(une transcription incorrecte, une latinisation impropre, et I'usage 
d'une voyelle de liaison inappropriee, ne doivent pas etre consideres 
comme des erreurs d "inadvertence); ou si, 

Article 42. Les taxa du groupe-genre. — 

(d) Subdivision de genres. — [Art. 1 1 (f )(ii)]. 

Article 45. Taxa du groupe-espece. — 

(e) Interpretation des termes "variete" et "forme". — 

(i) Avant 1961, on ne doit pas interpreter I'usage de I'un des termes 
"variete" ou "forme" comme une precision formelle du rang, soit 
subspecifique, soit infrasubspecifique, et leur usage doit par con- 
sequent etre interprete comme denotant un rang subspecifique. 

Article 52. Homonymie. — Au sens du Code, I'liomonymie est I'identite 
d'orthograplie (y compris les orthographes variables enumerees dans 1' Article 
58) de noms utilisables designant, dans le meme genre, des taxa du groupe- 
espece differents, ou, a I'interieur du groupe-genre ou du groupe-famille, des 
taxa objectivement differents. 

Article 59. Homonymes primaires et secondaires [Art. 57]. — 

(b) Homonymes secondaires. — Un nom du groupe-espece qui est un hom- 
onyme secondaire plus recent doit etre rejete par tout zoologiste qui 
estime que les deux taxa du groupe-espece en question appartiennent au 
meme genre. 

(i) Un homonyme secondaire plus recent rejete avant 1961 est defini- 
tivement rejete et ne pent pas etre retabli a moins que I'emploi du 
nom de remplacement ne soit contraire a I'usage existant. Dans 
ce cas I'usage existant doit etre maintenu et la question doit etre 
deferee a la Commission afin qu'elle designe comme nom valide (si 
necessaire par I'usage des pleins pouvoirs [Art. 79]) celui des noms 
qui a son avis sert le mieux la stabilite et I'universalite de la nomen- 
clature. 

(ii) Si un cas d'homonymie secondaire a ete ignore ou si le nom le plus 
recent n'a pas ete remplace et si les taxa en question ne sont plus 
consideres comme appartenant au meme genre, le nom le plus 
recent ne doit pas etre rejete meme si Tun des noms a ete originelle- 
ment propose dans le genre courant de I'autre. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83 

regardless of its derivation or of its treatment by its original 
author. 
[Article 30(a)(i) and 30(a)(i)(2). Delete references to -ops from the Examples.] 

Article 32. Original spelling. — 
(a) Correct original spelling. — 

(ii) there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any 
external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, 
such as a lapsus calami, or a copyist's or printer's error (incorrect 
transliteration, improper latinization, and use of an inappropriate 
connecting vowel are not to be considered inadvertent errors); or 



Article 42. Taxa of the genus-group. — 

(d) Subdivision of genera. — [Art. 1 l(f)(ii)]. 

Article 45. Taxa of the species-group. — 

(e) Interpretation of the terms "variety" and "form". — 

(i) Before 1961, the use of either of the terms "variety" or "form" is 
not to be interpreted as an express statement of either subspecific 
or infrasubsjjecific rank, and their use is therefore to be interpreted 
as denoting subspecific rank [Art. 45{d)(i)]. 

Article 52. Homonymy. — In the meaning of the Code, homonymy is the 
identity in spelling (including the variable spellings set out in Article 58) of 
available names denoting different species-group taxa within the same genus, or 
objectively diiferent taxa within the genus-group or within the family-group. 



Article 59. Primary and secondary homonyms [Art. 57]. — 

(b) Secondary homonyms. — A species-group name that is a junior secondary 

homonym must be rejected by any zoologist who believes that the two 

species-group taxa in question are congeneric. 

(i) A junior secondary homonym rejected before 1961 is permanently 
rejected and cannot be restored unless the use of the replacement 
name is contrary to existing usage. In that case existing usage is 
to be maintained and the matter is to be referred to the Commission 
to designate as the valid name (by use of the plenary powers if neces- 
sary [Art. 79]), whichever name will in its judgement best serve 
stability and uniformity of nomenclature. 

(ii) If a situation of secondary homonymy has been overlooked, or if 
the junior name has not been replaced [Art. 60], and the taxa in 
question are no longer considered congeneric, the junior name is not 
to be rejected, even though one name was originally proposed in the 
current genus of the other. 



84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Article 74. Lectotypes. 

(a) Designation d'un specimen. — 

(ii) La premiere designation publiee d'un lectotype prend le pas sur 
toutes les restrictions precedentes de I'emploi du nom de I'espece. 
Exemple. — La localite-type deviant le lieu geographique de I'origine du lectotype, 
en d^pit de toute restriction anterieure de la localite-type. 

Article 76. Statut de la Commission et Autorite sur la Commission. — 

(a) Statut de la Commission. — La Commission Internationale de Nomen- 
clature Zoologique est un organisme permanent qui tient tous ses 
pouvoirs des Congres Internationaux de Zoologie ou de leurs successeurs 
en autorite. 

(b) Interpretation. — Les termes "Congres", "Congres International (ou 
Congres Internationaux) de Zoologie", "Section", "Section de Nomen- 
clature" partout ou ils apparaissent dans le present Code et la Constitu- 
tion de la Commission doivent etre compris comme signifiant ces organ- 
ismes ou tout organisme agissant avec une autorite deleguee d'apres les 
dispositions du present Article. 

(c) Autorite sur la Commission. — 

(i) Un Congres International de Zoologie, ou son successeur en autorite, 
peut deleguer tous les pouvoirs et fonctions auxquels il est fait 
reference dans le present Code, y compris ce pouvoir de delegation, 
a un autre organisme international de zoologistes. 

(ii) Dans I'eventualite d'une telle delegation la Commission Inter- 
nationale de Nomenclature Zoologique doit, au moyen de negoci- 
ations avec I'organisme auquel a ete deleguee I'autorite, prendre des 
dispositions pour que soit assure I'exercice des fonctions de la 
Section de Nomenclature du Congres International de Zoologie, 
specifiees au Chapitre XVIII du present Code et dans la Constitution 
de la Commission. 

(iii) Dans I'eventualite oil I'organisme exergant I'autorite deleguee 
d'apres les dispositions du present Article manque a remplir ses 
fonctions, la Commission peut transferer cette delegation a un autre 
organisme international de zoologistes. 

(iv) Aucune delegation ne doit avoir lieu en vertu des dispositions du 

present Article sans I'approbation prealable de la Commission, 
(v) Toute proposition devant la Commission en vertu des dispositions 
du present Article requiert I'approbation des deux tiers des votes 
validement emis au scrutin secret par voie postale. 

(d) Periodes de transition. — Au cours de toute periode suivant la fin de I'auto- 
rite exercee par les Congres Internationaux de Zoologie ou par un organ- 
ismeagissantavec une autorite deleguee d'apres les dispositions du present 
Article, la Commission doit continuer ses fonctions d'apres les dispositions 
du Code et de la Constitution et doit en rendre compte a I'organisme qui 
succede en autorite comme si cet organisme avait detenu I'autorite durant 
la periode qui a suivi le rapport de la dite Commission au dernier 
Congres International de Zoologie ou a son successeur en autorite. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85 

Article 74. Lectotypes. — 

(a) Designation of a specimen. — 

(ii) The first published designation of a lectotype supersedes all previous 
restrictions of the use of the name of the species. 
Example. — The type-locality becomes the geographical place of origin of the 
lectotype, despite any previous restriction of the type-locality. 

Article 76. Status of the Commission and Authority over the Commission. — 

(a) Status of the Commission. — The International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature is a permanent body which derives all its powers from the 
International Congresses of Zoology or their successors in authority. 

(b) Interpretation. — The terms "Congress", "International Congress (or 
Congresses) of Zoology", "Section", "Section on Nomenclature", 
wherever they appear in this Code and the Constitution of the Com- 
mission are to be read as meaning those bodies or any body acting with 
delegated authority under this Article. 

(c) Authority over the Commission. — 

(i) An International Congress of Zoology, or its successor in authority, 
may delegate any of its powers and functions referred to in this 
Code, including this power of delegation, to another international 
body of zoologists, 
(ii) In the event of such delegation the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature shall by negotiation with the body having 
delegated authority over it make provisions for the carrying out of 
the functions of the Section on Nomenclature of the International 
Congress of Zoology specified in Chapter XVIII of this Code and in 
the Constitution of the Commission. 

(iii) In the event of the body exercising delegated authority under this 
Article failing to carry out its functions, the Commission may 
transfer this delegation to another international body of zoologists. 

(iv) No delegation shall be made under this Article without the prior 

approval of the Commission, 
(v) Any proposal before the Commission under this Article shall require 
approval by two thirds of the votes validly cast by post in a secret 
ballot. 

(d) Transitional Periods. — In any period following the termination of the 
authority exercised by the International Congresses of Zoology, or by a 
body acting with delegated authority under this Article, the Commission 
shall continue its functions under the Code and Constitution, and shall 
report to the body succeeding in authority as though that body had been 
in authority during the period subsequent to its report to the last Inter- 
national Congress of Zoology or its successor in authority. 



86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Article 77. Fonctions de la Commission. — 

(a) Amendements au Code. — 

(i) La Commission re?oit et prend en consideration d'apres les pro- 
cedures etablies dans 1' Article 16(a) de la Constitution toute pro- 
position qui lui est faite pour I'amendement du Code. 

(ii) La Commission ne doit pas faire paraitre une Declaration sur toute 
proposition qui constituerait un changement majeur au Code. 

(iii) Lorsque la Commission determine par les deux tiers des votes valide- 
ment emis qu'un amendement propose ne constitue pas une modifi- 
cation majeure du Code mais en clarifie simplement une disposition, 
elle peut faire paraitre une Declaration (un amendement provisoire 
du Code) soumise aux dispositions de I'Article 78. 

(b) Autres fonctions. — La Commission doit : 

(i) Prendre en consideration les questions de nomenclature zoologique 
qui ne demandant pas d'amendement du Code et formuler des 
Opinions et des Directions sur ces questions. 

(ii) Recevoir et prendre en consideration toute requete tendant a 
reviser une decision de la Commission. 

(iii) Compiler et publier les Listes Officielles des Noms et Travaux en 
Zoologie et les Index Officiels des Noms et Travaux rejetes et 
invalides en Zoologie. 

(iv) Presenter des rapports par publication dans le Bulletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature sur les questions concernant la nomenclature zoolo- 
gique et d'un interet general pour les zoologistes, qui lui sent soumises 
par un Congres International de Zoologie. 

(v) Soumettre des rapports aux Congres sur ses travaux, et 

(vi) Assumer toutes les autres fonctions qu'un Congres International de 
Zoologie peut determiner en accord avec la Commission. 

Article 78. Exercice des pouvoirs. — 

(a) Declarations. — Une Declaration publiee par la Commission conforme- 
ment a I'Article 77(a)(iii) a la force d'un amendement provisoire au 
Code et demeure en vigueur jusqu'a ce que le prochain Congres Inter- 
national de Zoologie la ratifie ou la rejette. Si la Declaration est 
ratifiee, le Code est amende en consequence a partir de la date de la 
Declaration. Ceci fait, une Declaration est tenue pour annulee en 
tout point, sauf a des fins historiques. 

[Article 78(g) est annule]. 

Article 79. Pleins Pouvoirs. — 

(b) Suppression des synonymes plus anciens inemployes. — 

Quand une requete est adressee a la Commission en vue de la suppression 
d'un nom inutilise, en raison de sa qualite de synonyme plus ancien d'un 
nom en usage courant et general, il apparait au premier abord que la 
stabilite est menacee s'il est montre que le nom plus ancien n'est pas 
connu comme ayant ete utilise pendant les 50 ans immediatement 
precedents et que le nom qu'il remplacerait a ete applique 4 un taxon 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 8? 

Article 77. Duties of the Commission.^ 

(a) Amendments to the Code. — ■ 

(i) The Commission shall recsive and consider under the procedures 
laid down in the Constitution, Article 16(a) any proposals made to it 
for the amendment of the Code. 

(ii) The Commission shall not issue a Declaration on any proposal which 
would be a major change in the Code. 

(iii) Where the Commission determines by two thirds of the votes validly 
cast that a proposed amendment to the Code is not a major change 
but merely clarifies a provision of the Code, it may issue a Declar- 
ation (a provisional amendment to the Code) subject to the provisions 
of Article 78. 

(b) Other Duties. — The Commission shall : 

(i) Consider questions of zoological nomenclature that do not require 
amendment to the Code and render Opinions and Directions on 
them; 

(ii) receive and consider any application for the review of a decision by 
the Commission ; 

(iii) compile and publish the Official Lists of Names and Works in 
Zoology and the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names and 
Works in Zoology; 

(iv) report through publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
on matters concerning zoological nomenclature and of general con- 
cern to zoologists referred to it by an International Congress of 
Zoology; 

(v) submit reports to the Congresses on its work; and 

(vi) discharge such other duties as an International Congress of Zoology 
in consultation with the Commission may determine. 

Article 78. Exercise of powers. — 

(a) Declarations. — A Declaration pubhshed by the Commission pursuant 
to Article 77(a)(iii) shall have the force of a provisional amendment to 
the Code and shall remain in force until the next succeeding International 
Congress of Zoology ratifies or rejects it. If the Declaration is ratified, 
the Code shall be deemed accordingly amended from the date of the 
Declaration. A Declaration is thereupon repealed for all except his- 
torical purposes. 

[Article 78(g) is deleted] 

Article 79. Plenary powers. — 

(b) Suppression of unused senior synonyms. — Where an application is made 
to the Commission for the suppression of a name on the grounds that 
it is an unused senior synonym of a name in general current use, a 
prima facie case that stability is threatened will be made if it can be shown 
that the senior name is not known to have been used during the im- 
mediately preceding fifty years and that the name it would replace has 
been applied to a particular taxon, as its presumably valid name, by at 



88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

particulier, en tant que nom presume valide, par cinq auteurs differents 

au moins et dans 10 publications au nioins, pendant la meme periode. 
(i) L'usage d'un nom contrairement au but de la Loi de Priorite [Art. 
23(a-b)], la mention d'un nom dans une synonymie ou sa simple 
presence dans une publication analytique, ou dans un nomenclateur 
ou un autre index, ou dans une liste de noms, ne seront pas acceptes 
comme usage au sens de (b), a moins que la Commission n'ait la 
certitude que des circonstances speciales justifient une telle ac- 
ceptation. 

(ii) Chaque citation d'un nom sera jugee sur sa valeur intrinseque, sans 
egard a la nature ou au titre du travail dans lequel le nom figure. 

(iii) Un nom rejete par un zoologiste avant le ler Janvier 1973, pour le 
motif explicite qu'il s'agissait d'un synonyme plus ancien inutilise 
d'un nom en usage general courant, ne sera pas employe sauf avec 
I'approbation de la Commission. Pour ecarter toute incertitude, 
une requete devrait etre adressee a la Commission en vue de la 
suppression de tels noms sous les pleins pouvoirs. 

(iv) Le terme "rejete" relatif au (iii) ci-dessus doit etre interprete de 
fa^on stricte: le simple fait de ne pas tenir compte d'un nom ne doit 
pas etre interprete comme un rejet, a moins que les deux noms ne 
soient publics d'une maniere indiquant qu'ils sont utilisables pour 
le meme taxon et que le nom plus recent est employe comme le nom 
valide. 

Article 80. Statut d'un cas sub judice. — Quand un cas est en cours d'examen 
par la Commission, l'usage existant doit etre maintenu jusqu'a ce que la decision 
de la Commission soit publiee. 

(i) Un cas est considere comme soumis a la Commission a la date de 
publication dans le Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, par le 
Secretaire de le Commission, de I'avis de reception de la requete. 
(ii) Si un cas soumis a la Commission requiert une decision sur celui de 
deux noms (synonymes) a utiliser pour un taxon, les mots "usage 
existant" doivent etre interpretes comme designant l'usage le plus 
commun. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89 

least five different authors and in at least 10 publications during the same 

period, 
(i) The mentioning of a name in a synonymy or its mere listing in an 
abstracting publication, or in a nomenclator or other index or list 
of names will not be accepted as usage in the sense of (a) unless the 
Commission is satisfied that special circumstances justify such 
acceptance. 



(ii) Each citation of a name will be considered on its own merits regard- 
less of the nature of the title of the work in which the name appears. 

(iii) A name rejected by a zoologist prior to 1 January 1973, on the 
explicit grounds that it was an unused senior synonym of a name in 
general current use, shall not be used except with the approval of the 
Commission. To remove uncertainty, application should be made 
to the Commission for the suppression of such names under the 
plenary powers. 

(iv) The term "rejected" in relation to (iii) above must be rigidly con- 
strued; mere disregarding of a name is not to be construed as rejection 
unless both names are pubhshed in a manner indicating that they 
are available for the same taxon and the junior name is employed as 
the valid name. 



Article 80. Status of case under consideration. — 



(i) A case is deemed to be under consideration by the Commission 
from the date of publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- 
clature of a notice of the reception of the application. 

(ii) Where a case under consideration by the Commission seeks a de- 
cision as to which of two names (synonyms) is to be used for a taxon 
the words "existing usage" are to be taken to mean the most common 
usage. 




90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

LA CONSTITUTION DE LA COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE 
DE NOMENCLATURE ZOOLOGIQUE 

Article 1. Statut et Fonctions de la Commission. — Le statut, les fonctions et 
les pouvoirs de la Commission sont definis dans le Code International de 
Nomenclature Zoologique. 

Article 2. Composition de la Commission. — 

(a) Nombre. — La Commission comprend ordinairement 18 membres ou un 
nombre plus eleve tel que la Commission peut le fixer. Les noms et les 
adresses des membres en fonction sont publics dans le Bulletin of 
Zoological Nomenclature. 

(b) Titres. — Les membres de la Commission doivent etre des personnalites 
scientifiques eminentes, sans consideration de nationalite, qui se sont 
distinguees dans Tune des branches de la zoologie et qui ont manifeste un 
interet pour la nomenclature zoologique. 

(c) Representation des divers interets. — Dans la mesure du possible, la 
composition de la Commission doit assurer une representation equilibree : 

(i) des systematiciens des principales divisions du regne animal ; 

(ii) des zoologistes des differentes parties du monde; 

(iii) des paleozoologistes ; 

(iv) non seulement des zoologistes systematiciens mais aussi, parmi ceux 
qui travaillent dans les domaines de la zoologie generale et des 
sciences biologiques appliquees (p. ex. medecine, agriculture, etc.), de 
ceux qui, en tant qu'utilisateurs des noms zoologiques, sont directe- 
ment interesses au probleme de la nomenclature, et ont montre qu'ils 
comprenaient les principes de base de la nomenclature zoologique. 

Article 3. Duree du mandat des members de la Commission. — 

(a) Duree normale. — Le cinquieme des membres de la Commission, a savoir 
ceux qui ont eu le mandat le plus long depuis leur derniere election, 
cesseront leurs fonctions a la fin de chaque Congres. 

(b) Reelection. — A moins que le Conseil de la Commission ne decide le 
contraire, un membre dont le mandat vient a expiration n'est pas 
immediatement reeligible. 

(c) Cessation anticipee de fonction. — Tout membre de la Commission sera 
decharge de ses fonctions : 

(i) a la date de son 75eme anniverasire; 

(ii) s'il presente sa demission en ecrivant au Secretaire, lorsque cette 
demission est acceptee par le Conseil ; 

(iii) si, ne beneficiant pas d'un conge d'absence, il manque en cinq 
occasions consecutives a voter sur une question soumise pour 
decision a la Commission, et si, apres un tel manquement, il n'a pas 
fourni au Secretaire dans un delai de trois mois une explication 
ecrite jugee acceptable par le Conseil. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91 

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 
ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

Article 1. Status and Functions of the Commission. — The status, duties and 
powers of the Commission are defined in the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature. 



Article 2. Membership of the Commission. — 

(a) Number. — The Commission shall ordinarily consist of 18 members or 
such larger number as the Commission may decide. The names and 
addresses of the members at any given time shall be published in the 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 

(b) Qualifications. — The members of the Commission shall be eminent 
scientists, irrespective of nationality, with a distinguished record in any 
branch of zoology, who are known to have an interest in zoological 
nomenclature. 

(c) Representation of diverse interests. — As far as practicable, the composi- 
tion of the Commission shall be such as to secure a balanced represen- 
tation: 

(i) of systematists in the principal divisions of the animal kingdom; 
(ii) of zoologists from different parts of the world ; 
(iii) of palaeozoologists ; 

(iv) not only of systematic zoologists, but also of those workers in 
general zoology and the applied biological sciences (e.g., medicine, 
agriculture, etc.) who, as users of zoological names, are directly 
interested in the problem of nomenclature, and who have shown an 
understanding of the general problems underlying zoological 
nomenclature. 

Article 3. Term of service of Members of the Commission. — 

(a) Normal term. — The term of that one-fifth of the members of the Com- 
mission who have had the longest service since they were last elected 
shall terminate at the close of each Congress. 

(b) Re-election. — Unless the Council of the Commission decides to the 
contrary, a member whose term of service terminates shall not be eligible 
for immediate re-election. 

(c) Prior termination of membership. — The membership of any member of 
the Commission shall terminate: 

(i) on the date of his 75th birthday; 

(ii) if he tenders his resignation in writing to the Secretary, when this 
resignation is accepted by the Council ; 

(iii) if, not being on leave of absence, he fails on five successive occasions 
to record his vote on a question put to the Commission for decision, 
provided that within a period of three months following such failure 
he has not furnished the Secretary with a written explanation which 
the Council finds adequate. 



92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Article 4. Election des membres de la Commission. — 

(a) Publicite. — La Commission doit publier, au moins une annee avant un 
Congres, une notice se referant a 1" Article 2(b) de cette Constitution et: 

(i) annon?ant les noms, la nationalite et le domaine de specialisation de 
chacun des membres de la Commission dont le mandat se termine a 
la cloture de ce Congres et invitant a presenter des candidats a sa 
succession ; 

(ii) annon?ant le nombre de sieges que la Commission, exer?ant ses 
pouvoirs d'apres les dispositions de I'Article 2(a) ci-dessus, a decide 
de pourvoir. 

(b) Diffusion. — La notice ci-dessus doit etre envoyee a I'organisme ayant 
autorite sur la Commission pour etre diffusee parmi ses membres. 

(c) Presentations de candidatures. — Les presentations de candidatures, 
accompagnees de precisions de la date de naissance, la nationalite, le 
domaine de la specialisation et les titres de chaque candidat d'apres les 
dispositions de TArticIe 2(b), ainsi que les nom et qualite du ou des 
presentateurs, doivent etre envoyees au Secretariat de la Commission 
dans les trois mois suivant la publication de la notification a laquelle il 
est refere dans 4(a) ci-dessus. 

(d) Liste des candidats. — La Commission doit preparer une liste de deux 
candidats proposes au plus pour chaque place a pourvoir conformement 
aux procedures specifiees dans les statuts et doit presenter cette liste a la 
Section de Nomenclature du Congres International de Zoologie. 

(e) Election. — L'election doit etre conduite par la Section de Nomenclature 
au scrutin secret et les noms des elus parmi les noms figurant sur la 
liste a laquelle il est refere au (d) ci-dessus doivent etre soumis a la seance 
pleniere du Congres pour ratification. 

(f) Vacances eventuelles. — Quand une vacance survient entre les Congres par 
suite de la cessation anticipee de fonction d'un membre de la Commission 
[Art. 3(c)], la Commission peut remplir cette vacance en suivant les 
procedures specifiees dans les statuts. 

Article 5. Fonctions des membres de la Commission. — 

(a) Pendant les sessions. — Un membre de la Commission a le devoir d'assister 
a chaque session de la Commission, s'il le peut, et d'assister a chaque 
reunion au cours d'une session a moins qu'il ne soit excuse, pour des 
raisons imperatives, par le president de seance. 

(b) Entre les sessions. — Un membre de la Commission doit voter, dans les 
delais prescrits, sur chaque question qui lui est soumise a cette fin par le 
Secretaire. 

(c) Conge d'absence. — Un membre de la Commission qui est temporairement 
dans I'impossibilite de s'aquitter de ses fonctions devrait demander (si 
possible a I'avance), par I'intermediaire du Secretaire, un conge d'absence 
pour une periode specifiee. 

Article 6. Membres du bureau. — Le bureau de la Commission comprend un 
President, un Vice-President et tels autres membres qu'en deciders eventuelle- 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93 

Article 4. Election of Members of the Commission. — 

(a) Notice. — The Commission shall publish, not less than one year in advance 
of a Congress, a notice quoting Article 2(b) of this Constitution and 
announcing: 

(i) the names, nationalities and fields of specialisation of the members 
of the Commission whose terms of service will end at the close of 
that Congress and inviting nominations for candidates to succeed 
them; 
(ii) announcing the number of seats which the Commission, exercising 
its powers under Article 2(a) above, has decided are to be filled. 

(b) Circulation. — The above notice shall be sent to the body having authority 
over the Commission for circulation to its members. 

(c) Nominations. — Nominations, accompanied by a statement of the date of 
birth, nationality, fields of specilisation and qualifications under Article 
2(b) of each candidate, and of the name(s)and status of the nominator(s), 
shall be sent to the Secretariat of the Commission within three months of 
the publication of the notice referred to in (a) above. 

(d) List of Candidates. — The Commission shall prepare a list of not more 
than two nominees for each place to be filled under procedures to be 
specified in the By-Laws and shall present it to the Section on Nomen- 
clature of the International Congress of Zoology. 

(e) Election. — The election shall be conducted by the Section on Nomen- 
clature by secret ballot and the names of those elected from the list 
referred to in (d) above shall be submitted to the plenary session of the 
Congress for ratification. 

(f) Casual vacancies. — When a vacancy arises between Congresses owing to 
the prior termination of membership of a Commissioner [Art. 3(c)], the 
Commission may fill the vacancy by procedures specified in the By-Laws. 



Article 5. Duties of Members of the Commission. — 

(a) At Sessions. — It shall be the duty of a Member of the Commission to 
attend each Session of the Commission if it is possible for him to do so, 
and to attend each meeting during a session unless excused for compelling 
reasons by the presiding oflncer. 

(b) Between Sessions. — It shall be the duty of a member of the Commission 
to vote, within the prescribed period, upon each question submitted to 
him for that purpose by the Secretary. 

(c) Leave of Absence. — A member of the Commission who is temporarily 
unable to perform his duties should apply through the Secretary (if 
possible in advance) for leave of absence for a specified period. 



Article 6. Officers. — The Officers of the Commission shall be a President, 
a Vice-President, and such other officers as the Commission shall decide. The 



94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

ment la Commission. Les fonctions des membres du bureau doivent etre 
specifiees dans les statuts. 

Article 7. Conseil. — Le President, le Vice-President, le President sortant et 
d'autres membres de la Commission (ordinairement deux), suffisants pour 
porter le total a cinq, forment un Conseil. Ce Conseil est charge, au nom de la 
Commission, de remplir les fonctions qui lui sont specifiquement assignees 
suivant les dispositions de I'Article precedent et des Articles suivants, et de 
controler entre les sessions le travail de la Commission, en dehors des taches 
specifiquement attribuees a un membre du bureau ou au Secretariat et de celles 
que le President n'estime pas assez importantes pour qu'elles requierent un vote 
formel de la Commission. Le Conseil peut designer des membres de la Com- 
mission pour exercer des fonctions speciales. 

Article 8. Election des membres du bureau et du Conseil. — Les membres du 
bureau et du Conseil sont elus par la Commission au scrutin secret comme il est 
specific dans les statuts. 

Article 9. Secretariat. — Le Conseil designera un Secretaire qui peut etre un 
membre de la Commission servant a titre benevole ou, si les moyens financiers le 
permettent, un employe salarie. II peut aussi, si les moyens financiers le 
permettent, employer un Secretaire assistant et un personnel de bureau dont les 
fonctions doivent etre determinees par le Secretaire sous reserve de I'approbation 
du Conseil. 

Article 10. Comites. — 

(a) Role et composition. — Le Conseil, par I'intermediaire du President, peut 
designer des comites consultatifs et ad hoc pour faciliter les taches de 
redaction et de recherche du Secretariat ou pour assister la Commission 
de n'importe quelle autre maniere. Des zoologistes qui ne sont pas 
membres de la Commission peuvent etre elus pour participer aux travaux 
de tels comites. 

(b) Soumission de rapports. — Chaque comite ad hoc doit faire un rapport au 
Conseil dans les delais prevus au moment de sa designation ou lorsque le 
Consiel le soUicite. Les comites ad hoc se dissolvent en soumettant leur 
rapport final. Le mandat de tout comite expire en meme temps que le 
mandat du President qui I'a designe. Le nouveau President peut 
designer de nouveau tout comite existant au moment du depart de son 
predecesseur. 

Article 11. Sessions. — 

(a) Sessions generates. — Une session generate de la Commission doit etre 
tenue a I'occasion de chaque Congres et doit comprende une reunion 
pour les presentations de candidatures en vue de I'election des membres 
de la Commission d'apres les dispositions de I'Article 4. Une session 
generale peut commencer avant et continuer apres un Congres. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95 



duties of the Officers shall be stated in the By-Laws. 

Article 7. Council. — The President, the Vice-President, the past President, 
and sufficient other members of the Commission (ordinarily 2) to bring the total 
to five shall form a Council. This Council is charged to perform, on behalf of 
the Commission, the duties assigned to it specifically under the provisions of the 
preceding and following Articles and to supervise the work of the Commission 
between Sessions, not specifically assigned to an officer or to the Secretariat nor 
deemed by the President to require a formal vote by the Commission. The 
Council may designate members of the Commission to serve in a special capacity. 

Article 8. Election of Officers and members of Council. — The Officers and 
members of Council shall be elected by the Commission by secret ballot as 
specified in the By-Laws. 

Article 9. Secretariat. — The Council shall appoint a Secretary, who may 
be either a member of the Commission serving in an honorary capacity, or, 
finances permitting, a salaried employee. It may also, finances permitting, 
employ an assistant secretary and clerical staff, whose duties shall be determined 
by the Secretary subject to approval by the Council. 

Article 10. Committees. — 

(a) Appointment and Functions. — The Council, through the President, may 
appoint advisory and ad hoc committees to facilitate the editorial or 
fact-finding tasks of the Secretariat or to assist the Commission in any 
other way. Zoologists who are not members of the Commission are 
ehgible to serve on such committees. 

(b) Submission of reports. — Each ad hoc committee must report to the 
Council at the time stated in the terms of its appointment or when called 
upon by the Council to do so. Ad hoc committees dissolve on sub- 
mitting their final report. The term of any committee expires simul- 
taneously with the term of the President who appointed it. The incom- 
ing President may re-appoint any committee in existence at the time of 
his predecessor's retirement. 

Article 11. Sessions. — 
(a) General Sessions. — 

(i) A general session of the Coirunission shall be held on the occasion 

of every Congress and shall include a meeting for the nomination of 

members of the Commission for election under the provisions of 

Article 4. 

(ii) A general session may begin before and continue after a Congress. 



96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

(b) Sessions speciales. — La Commission peut convoquer une session speciale 
a tout moment et en tout lieu de son choix, pourvu que : 
(i) les questions qui seront discutees pendant cette session soient 

connues a I'avance de tous les membres de le Commission; 
(ii) seules les questions ainsi portees a la connaissance de la Commission 

soient discutees pendant cette session ; 
(iii) il n'y ait pas d'elections pendant une session speciale. 

Article 12. Vote. — A moins que cela ne soit autrement specific dans le Code 
ou la presente Constitution, la procedure suivante doit etre appliquee quand la 
Commission vote en matiere de nomenclature zoologique. 

(a) Dans les cas ordinaires. — Dans les cas qui n'impliquent pas I'usage des 
pleins pouvoirs, une decision affirmative sur toute proposition doit etre 
consideree comine ayant ete prise par la Commission lorsqu'une majorite 
simple des votants a emis un vote favorable dans les delais stipules sur le 
bulletin de vote. 

(b) Dans les cas impliquant I'usage des pleins pouvoirs. — Dans de tels cas 
(voir Article 79 du Code) une decision affirmative sur toute proposition 
ne doit etre consideree comme ayant ete prise que lorsque les deux tiers 
des votes validement emis sont en faveur de la proposition et a condition 
que six mois au moins avant le vote prevu un avis en ait ete soumis pour 
publication a trois periodiques zoologiques au moins, dont un public en 
Europe et un en Amerique. 

(c) Votes conditionnels. — Un membre de la Commission qui au lieu d'emettre 
un vote inconditionnel, indique qu'il desire appuyer le point de vue de la 
majorite sera considere comme ayant vote dans ce sens. 

(d) Votes negatifs. — Un membre de la Commission emettant un vote negatif 
peut, s'il le desire, renvoyer avec son bulletin de vote un court expose de 
ses raisons d'agir ainsi. Tout expose de cette nature sera public 
integralement avec le resultat du vote. 

Article 13. Dispositions financi^res. — La Commission quand elle n'est pas 
preparee a reunir ou a administrer ses propres fonds est autorisee a ces fins a 
etablir des relations benefiques avec un organisme tel que V International Trust 
for Zoological Nomenclature, qui se chargera d'agir en conformite avec la ligne 
de conduite de la Commission et des Congres. La Commission a toute liberte 
pour mettre fin a de tels rapports. 

Article 14. Fonctions de redaction de la Commission. — La Commission doit 
faire paraitre et, si les moyens financiers le permettent, peut elle-meme editer des 
communications diverses qui seront preparees et redigees au Secretariat sous la 
direction du Conseil. 

(a) Decisions. — La Commission devra publier les Declarations, Opinions et 
Directions incorporant les decisions de la Commission, ainsi qu'il est 
specific dans les Articles 77 et 78 du Code. 

(b) Information. — Si les moyens financiers le permettent, la Commission 
devra publier un periodique afin de tenir les zoologistes informes des cas 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 97 

(b) Special Sessions. — The Commission may convene a special session at any 
time or place of its choice, provided that: 
(i) the business to be transacted at that session is made known in 

advance to all members of the Commission ; 
(ii) only the business so made known is to be transacted in the course of 

the session, 
(iii) no elections shall take place at a special session. 

Article 12. Voting. — Unless otherwise specified in the Code or in this 
Constitution, the following procedures shall apply when the Commission votes 
on matters of zoological nomenclature. 

(a) In ordinary cases. — In cases not involving the use of the plenary powers, 
an affirmative decision shall be deemed to have been taken by the 
Commission when a simple majority of those voting votes in favour 
within the time period stipulated on the voting paper. 

(b) In cases involving the use of the plenary powers. — In such cases (see Article 
79 of the Code), an affirmative decision shall be deemed to have been 
taken only when two thirds of the votes validly cast are in favour of the 
proposal, and provided that not less than six months' notice of the 
impending vote had been submitted for publication in at least three 
zoological serials, including one published in Europe, and one in 
America. 

(c) Conditional votes. — A member of the Commission, who instead of 
casting an unconditional vote, states that he wishes to support the 
majority view shall be deemed to have voted in that sense. 

(d) Negative votes. — A member of the Commission casting a negative vote 
may, if he wishes, send in with his voting paper a short statement of his 
reasons for so doing; any such statements shall be published along with 
the result of the vote. 

Article 13. Financial arrangements. — The Commission when not prepared 
to raise or administer its own funds is empowered for such purposes to enter into 
a beneficent relationship with a body such as the International Trust for 
Zoological Nomenclature, that undertakes to act in accordance with the policy 
of the Commission and the Congresses. The Commission may terminate such 
a relationship at its discretion. 

Article 14. Editorial duties of the Commission. — The Commission shall 
issue and, finances permitting may itself publish, various communications, to be 
prepared and edited in the office of the Secretary under the guidance of the 
Council. 

(a) Decisions. — It shall be the duty of the Commission to publish Declara- 
tions, Opinions and Directions embodying the decisions of the Coimnis- 
sion, as specified in Articles 77 and 78 of the Code. 

(b) Information. — Finances permitting, it shall be the duty of the Commission 
to publish a periodical for the purpose of keeping zoologists informed on 



98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

en instance devant la Commission et afin de publier la procedure de la 
Commission, les informations et la discussion generale des questions de 
nomenclature, 
(c) Tenue a jour des "Listes Officielles" et des "Index". — La Commission 
compile et tient a jour les Listes et Index mentionnes ci-dessous : 
(i) La Liste Officielle des Noms du Groupe-Famille en Zoologie; 
(ii) La Liste Officielle des Noms Generiques en Zoologie; 
(iii) La Liste Officielle des Noms Specifiques en Zoologie; 
(iv) La Liste Officielle des Travaux en Zoologie; 

(v) L'Index Official des Noms Rejetes et Invalides du Groupe-Famille 

en Zoologie; 
(vi) L'Index Officiel des Noms Generiques Rejetes et Invalides en 

Zoologie ; 
(vii) L'Index Officiel des Noms Specifiques Rejetes et Invalides en 

Zoologie ; 
(viii) L'Index Officiel des Travaux Rejetes et Invalides en Zoologie. 

Article 15. Pouvoirs exceptionnels. — Si, a la suite de circonstances excep- 
tionelles, le Congres est empeche de tenir sa reunion periodique normale, la 
Commission ou le Conseil, ou a defaut le President peuvent assumer et exercer 
tout pouvoir extraordinaire que I'un ou I'autre peuvent estimer necessaire pour 
assurer la continuite de I'existence de la Commission, pourvu que: 

(i) les pouvoirs assumes n'incluent pas le pouvoir de modifier le Code et 
que ni le Conseil ni le President ne s'arrogent le pouvoir de rendre 
des Declarations ou des Opinions au nom de la Commission; 
(ii) a la premiere reunion du Congres apres la fin de telles circonstances 
exceptionelles, la Commission soumette un rapport au Congres 
concernant les pouvoirs extraordinaires assumes durant les circon- 
stances exceptionelles et Taction accomplie en consequence. 

Article 16. Amendements au Code. — En prenant en consideration une 
proposition pour un amendement au Code, la Commission doit: 
(i) publier la proposition; 

(ii) soumettre pour publication dans au moins deux journaux scienti- 
fiques publics sur des continents diflferents des notices annongant la 
reception et la publication de toute proposition de cet ordre; 

(iii) recevoir et prendre en consideration les commentaires des zoologistes 
sur toute proposition, qui sont rcQus pendant une periode d'une 
annee apres la date de publication de la proposition par la Com- 
mission ; 

(iv) voter sur la proposition apres une periode d'au moins une annee 
apres la date de publication par la Commission de la proposition; 

(v) publier sa decision et soumettre un rapport devant le prochain 
Congres et, si deux tiers ou plus des votes validement emis sur une 
question exigeant un amendement au Code sont affirmatifs, recom- 
mander son adoptionparle Congres en tant qu'amendement au Code. 



Bulk tin of Zoological Nomenclature 99 

cases pending before the Commission, for publishing the procedure of 
the Commission, for announcements, and for the general discussion of 
nomenclatural questions, 
(c) Maintenance of Official Lists and Indexes. — The Commission shall 
compile and maintain the undermentioned Lists and Indexes: 

(i) Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; 

(ii) Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; 
(iii) Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; 

(iv) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 
Zoology ; 

(v) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; 

(vi) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; 
(vii) Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological 

Nomenclature; 
(viii) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomen- 
clature. 

Article 15. Emergency Powers. — If, as a result of an emergency, the 
Congress is prevented from holding its normal periodical meeting, the Com- 
mission, or the Council, or failing this, the President, may assume and exercise 
such extraordinary powers as it or he may consider necessary to secure the 
continued existence of the Commission, provided that : 

(i) the powers assumed shall not include power to vary the Code or 
power by the Council or the President to render Declarations or 
Opinions on behalf of the Commission; 
(ii) that, at the first meeting of the Congress after the end of such an 
emergency, the Commission shall submit a report to the Congress 
regarding the extraordinary powers assumed during the emergency 
and the action taken thereunder. 

Article 16. Amendments. — 

(a) Amendments to the Code. — In considering a proposal for amendment to 
the Code, the Commission shall : 
(i) publish the proposal; 

(ii) submit notices for publication in not less than two scientific journals 
pubUshed in different continents announcing the receipt and publica- 
tion of any such proposal ; 
(iii) receive and consider comments from zoologists on any such proposal 
that are received within one year after the date of publication of the 
proposal by the Commission; 
(iv) vote upon the proposal after a period of not less than one year from 

the date of pubfication by the Commission of the proposal; 
(v) publish its decision and report it to the next succeeding Congress and, 
if two thirds or more of the votes validly cast on a matter requiring 
amendment to the Code are in the affirmative, recommend its 
adoption by the Congress as an amendment to the Code. 



100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Article 17. Statuts. — La Commission a le pouvoir d'adopter un ensemble 
de statuts regissant ceux de ses reglements et activites non couverts par la 
Constitution. La Commission a autorite pour modifier ces statuts par un vote 
majoritaire lorsque les circonstances I'exigent. Ces statuts concerneront les 
sujets tels que les fonctions des membres du bureau, les methodes par lesquelles 
les presentations de candidatures doivent etre obtenues en cas de vacances a la 
Commission, les relations entre la Commission et le Secretariat, les reglements 
concernant la procedure des requetes et Tadoption des programmes de travail et 
des priorites et les autres affaires de la Commission. 

Article 18. Entree en vigueur. — Cette Constitution et tous les amendments 
subsequents prendront effet a la fin du Congres pendant lequel cette Constitution 
ou ces amendements seront ratifies. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101 

Article 17. By-Laws. — The Commission is empowered to adopt a set of 
By-Laws governing those of its regulations and activities not covered by the 
Constitution. The Commission has authority to modify these By-Laws by a 
majority vote as the occasion demands. These By-Laws will deal with such 
matters as the duties of the officers, the methods by which nominations are to be 
obtained for vacancies on the Commission, the relations between the Com- 
mission and the Secretariat, with regulations concerning the treatment to be 
given to applications and the adoption of time schedules and priorities, and with 
other business matters of the Commission. 

Article 18. Inauguration. — This Constitution and all subsequent amend- 
ments to it shall take effect at the close of the Congress at which it, or they, are 
ratified. 




INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

A. The Honorary Life President 

The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. {Chairman) 

B. The Members of the Trust 
The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merton, P.O., C.H. 
Mon. J. Forest 
Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. {Secretary and Managing 

Director) 
Dr. N. E. Hicldn 
Dr. L. B. Holthuis 
Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. 
Prof. Dr. O. Kraus 
Mr. R. V. Melville 
Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. 
Dr. N. R. StoU 
Mr. C. W. Wright, C.B. 
Dr. G. F. de Witte 

C. The OfiBcers of the Trust 

Margaret Green, B.Sc. {Scientific Assistant) 



CONTENTS 
{continued from front wrapper) 

International Union of Biological Sciences, Division of Zoology: Annex A.l 

Statutes of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature . . . . 74 

International Union of Biological Sciences, Division of Zoology: Annex A.l 

Revised Statutes of the Division of Zoology . . 75 

Amendments to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 
adopted since the XVI International Congress of Zoology, Washing- 
ton, 1963 79 

Amendements au Code International de Nomenclature Zoologique 
adoptes depuis le XVI Congres Internationale de Zoologie, Washing- 
ton, 1963 78 

The Constitution of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature . . 91 

La Constitution de la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature 
Zoologique 90 



© 1974. The International Trujt for Zoolooical Nomenclature 
Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at The George Press, Kettering Northamptonshire 



Volume 31, Part 3 ) 2 6 J£ pi 974) 20th September, 1974 

pp. 103-166 \ I 

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 



The Official Organ of 

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

Contents 

Page 

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: 

Date of commencement by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on appUcations published in 
the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature . . . . . . . . 103 

Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases . . 103 

{continued inside back wrapper) 



LONDON: 

Printed by Order of the International Trust for 

Zoological Nomenclature 

and 

Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological 

Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications OfSce 

c/o British Museum (Natural History) 

Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD 

1974 

Price Three Pounds 

(All rights reserved) 



INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 

A. The Officers of the Commission 



President: Dr. W. D. L. Ride (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 

August 1963) 
Vice-President: Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The 

Netherlands) (28 August 1963) 
Secretary: Mr. R. V. Melville (Institute of Geological Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, 

5. Pf. 7) (30 January 1968) 

B. The Members of the Commission 

(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) 
Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Genova, Italy) (16 December 

1954). Pisces; Echinodermata 
Professor Per Brinck (Lands Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958). 

Arthropoda, Ecology 
Dr. Henning Lemche ( Universiletets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958). 

Opisthobranchia; Phylogeny 
Professor Dr. Raphael Alvarado (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Maturates, Madrid, Spain) 

(31 May 1960). Echinoidea, Asteroidea 
Dr. E. G. MuNROE (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, 

Canada) (9 June 1961). Entomology, Zoogeography 
Professor E. Binder (Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962). 

Mollusca 
Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, 

Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mollusca 
Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 

(28 August 1963) (Vice-President). Crustacea 
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoologv at Harvard College, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Ornithology; Evolution 
Prof. Dr. Otto Kraus (Zoologisches Inslitui und Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg, Germany) 

(28 August 1963) (Councillor). Arachnida, Myriapoda 
Dr. W. D. L. Ride (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia 6000) (28 August 

1963) (President). Mammalia; Recent and Fossil 
Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, 

Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Diptera; Systematics 
Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Department of Geology, University of Arizona, Tucson, 

Arizona, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mammalia 
Dr. Eugene Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York 10024, 

U.S.A.) (30 January 1968). Ornithology 
Mr. R. V. Melville (Institute of Geological Sciences, Exhibition Road, London, SW7 IDE) 

(30 January 1968) (Secretary). Palaeontology 
Dr. Y. I. StAlROBOGatov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-\64, U.S.S.R.) 

(30 January 1968). Mollusca, Crustacea 
Professor F. M. Bayer (Institute of Marine Science, University of Miami, Florida 33 149, U.S.A.) 

(20 February 1972). Octocorallia; Systematics 
Dr. John O. Corliss (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (20 

February 1972). Protozoa; Systematics 
Prof. Dr. H. K. Erben (Institut fiir Paldontologie, Universitdt Bonn, 53 Bonn, Germany) f20 

February 1972). Invertebrate Palaeontology 
Professor T. Habe (National Science Museum, Ueno Park, Tokyo, Japan) (20 February 1972). 

Marine Biology 
Mr. David Heppell (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh 

EH\ \JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972). Mollusca 
Dr. I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) (20 

February 1972). Lepidoptera 
Prof. A. WiLLiNK (Instituto Miguel Lillo, Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1 972). Neotropical 

Hymenoptera 
Prof. B. B. RoHDENDORf (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S.S.R.) 

(21 July 1972). Insecta Palaeontology 
Prof. G. Bernardi (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). 

Lepidoptera 
Dr. C. Dupuis (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). 

Diptera 



BllllETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

Volume 31, Part 3 (pp. 103-166) 20th September, 1974 

NOTICES 

(a) Dale of Commencement of Voting. — In normal circumstances the 
Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any 
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present 
part is invited to send his contribution, in dupUcate, to the Secretariat of the 
Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the 
Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. 

(b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers. — The possible use by the Commission 
of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the 
present part of the Bulletin [those marked with an asterisk involve the appli- 
cation of Articles 23(a-b) and (79)b] : 

(1) Suppression of Donacilla De Blainville, 1819 (MoUusca). Z.N.(S.) 1959. 

(2) Designation of a type-species for Oxystomina Filipjev, 1918 (Nematoda). 

Z.N.(S.) 2031. 

(3) Suppression of Didermocerus Brooke, 1828 (Mammalia). Z.N.(S.) 1779. 

*(4) Suppression of Cicada cingulala (Fabricius) var. obscura Hudson, 1891 
(Insecta, Homoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1888. 

*(5) Suppression of Hymenosoma laeve Targioni Tozzetti, 1877 (Crustacea, 
Brachyura). Z.N.(S.) 2014. 

*(6) Suppression of Polygramma Chevrolat, 1 837 (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae). 
Z.N.(S.) 2048. 

*(7) Designation of type-species for Daciylopius Costa, 1835 and Pseudococcus 
Westwood, 1840; proposed suppression of Diaprosteci Costa, 1828 
(Insecta, Homoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2056. 

*(8) Suppression of Coccus sativus Lancry, 1791, Coccus mexicanus Lamarck, 
1801 and Coccus silvestrisLa.ncry, 1791 (Insecta, Homoptera). Z.N.(S.) 
2057. 

(9) Request for a ruling on the authorship of Conus moluccensis (Mollusca, 
Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 2059. 

(10) Conservation of Aphis pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841 and the suppres- 
sion of Aphis pyri Kittel, 1827 and Aphis pyri Vallot, 1802 and seven 
other binominals proposed by Kittel in 1827 (Insecta, Homoptera). 
Z.N.(S.) 2062. 

c/o British Museum (Natural History), Margaret green 

Cromwell Road, Scientific Assistant 

London, SW7 5BD, England International Commission on 

April 1974 Zoological Nomenclature 



104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

COMMENT ON THE CONSERVATION OF DICTYONEMA 

FLABELLIFORME (BICHWALD, 1840) (GRAPTOLITHINA) 

BY DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE. Z.N.(S.) 1776 

(See volume 24, pages 49-52) 

By A. M. Obut (Professor, Institute of Geology & Geophysics, Novosibirsk 90, U.S.S.R.) 

I have read with great interest the note by Professor O. M. B. Bulman on the 
conservation of Dictyonema flabettiforme (Eichwald, 1840) by the designation of a 
neotype, and I consider it my duty to tell you the following: 

The results of detailed study of materials from various countries, set out by O. M. B. 
Bulman in his two articles in 1966 and in the above mentioned note, have confirmed 
wholly and precisely the accuracy of deductions, based on comparative morphology 
of Dictyonema specimens (representatives) from the group of "Dictyonema flabetli- 
forme"; on taxonomy and nomenclature of the species Dictyonema ftabelliforme 
(Eichwald); on its synonym Dictyonema norvegiciim Kjerulf and the independence of 
the species Dictyonema graptolithum Kjerulf, all being published by A. M. Obut, 
1953, in "The Dendroids of the north-western part of the Russian platform". Thus, 
these questions have been brought to conclusive evidence. 

It is impossible, however, to agree with certain suggestions formulated at the end of 
Professor Bulman's application, about the preservation of names previously wrongly 
classified by some palaeontologists and partly by O. M. B. Bulman himself, of the 
Dictyonema species mentioned above. 

We must, as a general rule, observe the principle of a "type specimen", otherwise, 
instability will result and zoological nomenclature may become ambiguous. Although 
one can imagine that it would be convenient for English palaeontologists to have the 
type-specimens in which they are interested in the British Museum, it is impossible 
to choose the neotype from the material in the British Museum when in the museum 
of another country, where the first description was made, they have their own already 
selected type specimen (lectotype). The specimen in question is the lectotype of 
Dictyonema flabelliforme (Eichwald) No. l/28a2 from Eichwald's collection which is 
kept in the Museum of Historical Geology, Leningrad State University. The pro- 
posed actions, no doubt, could lead to the arbitrary violation of priority and authority 
in the work of foreign scientists. 

Certainly there are exceptions which have evoked the status of "nomen conser- 
vandum" but the worry of Professor Bulman about stratigraphical difficulties, which 
might argue in favour of varying the strict nomenclature of species of the group of 
D. flabelliforme, does not have any serious foundation. The practice of palaeontology 
and stratigraphy shows convincingly that the specialists concerned get accustomed 
with time, to more complicated rational corrections of previous errors, and that 
their new stratigraphical standards and tables become nearer to reality. 

We must add to this that a nomenclature which corresponds to reality, and which 
is developed by common efforts, will, in this case too, contribute to a more efficient 
systematics of the existing important number of independent speciss of Dictyonema 
which seems to be a leading group for the stratigraphy of the Lower Tremadocian 
deposits. 

COMMENT IN SUPPORT OF A PROPOSAL BY N. D. RILEY AND 
L. G. HIGGINS ON PAPILIO ACTAEON FABRICIUS, 1775 v. 
PAPILIO ACTEON VON ROTTEMBURG, 1775. Z.N.(S.) 1937 

By Lee D. Miller (Allyn Museum of Entomology, Sarasota, Florida 33580, U.S. A). 

One of the avowed goals of The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is 
the promotion of "stability and universality in the scientific names of animals". 
The replacement of well-known names by obscure senior synonyms inevitably causes 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105 

the non-systematist to feel that the "Code" actually works against stability and 
universality and further results in certain anti-taxonomic feelings to be rampant among 
many ecologists, physiologists, etc. For this reason alone systematists should con- 
sider very carefully before upsetting well-known names; regrettably many have not 
given the matter such thought. 

Happily, N. D. Riley and L. G. Higgins have considered the effects of discarding 
the familiar European hesperiid species name Tliymelicus acteon (von Rottemburg) 
in favour of validating Papilio actaeon Fabricius only long enough for it to become a 
synonym of the familiar South American lycaenid Areas imperialis (Cramer). The 
nomenclatorial confusion thus avoided is great, and Riley and Higgins are to be con- 
gratulated on their proposal. I urge the Commission to take speedy and affirmative 
action on their proposal for the resolution of the possible nomenclatorial confusion 
which could result in application of strict priority in this case. 

I would further say that the Commission's plenary powers should be used more, 
rather than less, for the purpose of validating familiar, though junior synonyms of 
names of well-known animals. This, more than anything the Commission could do, 
would enhance the stature of systematics in the eyes of non-systematic zoologists 
throughout the world. 



COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF CYMATHDAE 

IREDALE, 1913. Z.N.(S.) 1939 

(See volume 28, pages 59-61, 142 and volume 29, page 109) 

By R. V. Melville {Secretary, International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature) 

On 28 November 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)10 either for or against the proposals 
set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 61. At the close of the prescribed voting period 
on 28 February 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — seven (7), received in the following order: Vokes, Tortonese, 
Eisenmann, Habe, Binder, Ride, Kraus. 

Negative votes — thirteen (13): Dupuis, Holthuis, Lemche, Mayr, Jaczewski, 
Willink, Sabrosky, Alvarado*, Rohdendorf, Bayer, Heppell, Nye, Bernardi. 

Abstentions — one (1): Melville. 

On Leave of Absence — one (1): Simpson. 

Voting Papers not returned — three (3): Brinck, Munroe, Starobogatov. 
'Commissioner Alvarado requested that his vote should count with the majority. 
Commissioners Erben and Corliss returned late affirmative votes. 

In returning their voting papers, the Commissioners made the following conaments: 

Dr. C. Dupuis (30.xi.l973): "Je fonde mon refus sur I'excellent commentaire de 
Knudsen et Lemche (Bull. 28 : 142); il n'est pas possible d'inverser la priorite de 
CYMATiiDAE et RANELLiDAE et de les inscrire tous deux dans la liste officielle. J'ajoute 
qu'en raison du caractere mouvant de la taxinomie au niveau de famille, moins on 
inscrit de noms dans la liste ad hoc, mieux cela vaut". 

Prof. E. Tortonese (7.xii.l974): "I vote for the proposal because it appears that 
CYMATiiDAEwasuniversally used during the last 50 years (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 109)". 

Prof. Dr. T. Jaczewski (10.xii.l973): "1 support my decided objection and counter- 
proposal published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 ; 142". 

Dr. A. Willink (8.xii.l973): "I agree with the comments of Knudsen and Lemche". 

Mr. R. V. Melville (17.1.1974): "No vote. This case is not fully prepared at this 
stage". 

Prof. Dr. R. Alvarado (25.1.1974): "I wish to vote with the majority of the Com- 
missioners". 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Prof. B. B. Rohdendorf {\\.\\.\914): "1 vote against the conservation of the name 
CYMATiiDAE Iredale, 1913 because it is contradictory to the Law of Priority". 

Mr. D. Heppell (26.n.l91 A): "I vote against the proposals to give the family-group 
name cvmatiidae Iredale precedence over ranellidae Gray, and support the com- 
ments of Knudsen and Lemche already published. Cernohorsky and Beu submit an 
impressive list of authors who have followed Iredale's use of cvmatiidae, but it must 
be realized that, of the forty-nine references cited, thirty-one date from 1961 or earlier 
when a different Code was in operation. In the 1905 Regies the section dealing with 
the Law of Priority made no reference to family-group names, but customary usage 
condoned the acceptance of the oldest generic name in any family as its type-genus. 
Another seven of the cited references predate the demonstration by Dell & Dance of 
the proper attribution of the genus Ranella to that family also containing Cymatium. 
As the date and authorship of names of taxa of the family-group were not considered 
among malacologists, before 1961, as of much importance, these data are often 
difficult to determine. Such information is not provided by most nomenclators or 
other works of reference. It is not surprising, therefore, that many malacologists 
continued to use the name cvmatiidae, especially in regional malacofaunas such as 
that cited by the applicants, no doubt in excusable ignorance of the priority of other 
family-group names. Now that Cernohorsky and Beu have brought their error to 
light, there would seem to be no good argument to contra-indicate a general adoption 
of RANELLIDAE as the valid name. Appeals to the cause of nomenclatural stability 
carry little weight in a family in which, as Dr. Beu's own excellent papers have shown, 
almost every genus has been beset with nomenclatural or taxonomic complexities. 

"At the subfamily level I suggest some improvement to the nomenclatural situation 
outlined by the applicants in their reply to comments could be effected by the sup- 
pression of the unused names aquillidae Pilsbry & Vanatta, 1904, and personinae 
[personina] Gray, 1854. If these two groups are to be recognised at the subfamily 
level, it would be better to establish a name based on Cabestana Roding, 1798 fthe 
valid senior synonym of Aquillus) for the former, and employ distorsiinae Kuroda & 
Habe, 1971, for the latter. The seniority of septinae can be increased by the appli- 
cation of Article 40(b) and, by the same reasoning, cvmatiinae can take priority from 
the date of the rejected lotoriinae. The subfamily arrangement would then be as 
follows : 

ranellidae 

RANELLINAE Gray, 1854 

[septinae Dall, 1904 [1891]] (if recognised) 

CYMATiiNAE Iredale, 1913 [1897] 

CHARONiiNAE Powell, 1933 

[distorsiinae Kuroda & Habe, 1971] (if recognised) 

"If, of these, only ranellinae and cvmatiidae were placed on the Official List, 
CYMATIINAE could Continue to be used in the sense of cymatiinae -|- septinae despite 
the priority of the latter name [if the Official List of Family-Group Names has any 
significance], but both names would be available to those zoologists who considered 
them to apply to distinct subfamilies. I certainly do not like the idea of the currently 
unused name septinae being added to the Official List just to "preserve" it in case it 
should be required for resurrection at some future date. 

"One further problem, not mentioned in the original application nor in the com- 
ments thereon, would seem appropriate to bring to the notice of the Commission. As 
all categories of the family-group are of co-ordinate status in nomenclature (Article 36), 
the name of the superfamily must be based on that of the oldest contained family. 
That to which the ranellidae is referred was known as the doliacea, although recent 
authors have preferred the name tonnacea. When Tonna Briinnich, 1771 (a senior 
subjective synonym of Doliiim Lamarck, 1801), was placed on the Official List 
(Opinion 237), no action was taken then or subsequently to deal with the family name 
tonntoae. According to Kilias, 1962 {Das Tierreich 11 : 5), tonnidae dates from 
Suter, 1913, whereas the synonymous doliidae dates from Gray, 1856 [? recte 1857]. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107 

"Both these names are junior to ranellidae Gray, 1854. Herrmannsen, 1848, 
however, cites doliaria Latreille, 1825, as a family-group name. Although Kilias 
implies that he is using tonnidae illegally, though in the spirit of Article 5 of the 
1905 Regies ("The name of a family or subfamily is to be changed when the name of 
its type-genus is changed"), the desired result can be arrived at by invoking Article 
40(b) of the present Code. 1 recommend, therefore, that, to allow the currently used 
name tonnacea to continue as the valid name of the superfamily, by removing any 
doubt as to its priority, the name tonnidae Suter, 1913, be placed on the Official List 
with priority as of its rejected synonym doliidae [doliaria], 1825. 

"To summarize, I oppose proposal 1 ; I support proposal 2a (but with priority 
reckoned from 1897) and 2b, and oppose proposal 2c; 1 support proposals 3a-c and 
4a-c. I propose additionally that the names aquillidae Pilsbry & Vanatta, 1904, 
and personinae [personina] Gray, 1854, be placed on the Official Index of Rejected 
Names, and that the name tonnidae Suter, 1913 be placed on the Official List of 
Family-Group Names in Zoology with priority reckoned from 1825". 

Prof. G. Bernardi (18. ii. 1974): "Les coupes taxonomiques du groupe-famille 
paraissent ici encore mal fixes et il me semble done preferable d'appliquer strictement 
le Code". 

The fresh evidence produced by Mr. Heppell thus effectively re-opens this case. 

FURTHER COMMENT ON CHANDA HAM. BUCH., HAMILTONIA 
SWAINSON, AND THEIR TYPE SPECIES (PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 1946 

By P. J. P. Whitehead, P. H. Greenwood and E. Trewavas 
(British Museum (Natural History), London SIVl 5BD) 

This comment supports the application of Talwar, 1971 (Bull. zool. Nomencl., 
28 (3/4) : 104-5) to designate Chanda nama Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822 as type-species 
of Chanda (proposed in the same work), with Hamiltonia Swainson, 1839 a junior 
objective synonym. We have tried here to show that the strong criticism of Talwar's 
application levelled by Collette, 1973 (loc. cit., 30(2) : 69), on behalf of an ad hoc 
Nomenclature Committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetolo- 
gists, is based on a misunderstanding of Swainson's intentions when he proposed 
Hamiltonia. 

At least nine overt or implied type designations have been made, either for Chanda 
or for Hamiltonia, or for both at once. 

Cuvier, 1 828 — by faint implication setifer, or ruconius if Chanda is a junior synonym 
oi Equula Cuvier, 1816; 

Swainson, 1839 — ovata (new name for nama) or lala (new name or mis-spelling for 
lata) ; Chanda in parenthesis after description of Hamiltonia ; 

Bleeker, 1874 — ovata (implied = nama) for Hamiltonia; first actual type designa- 
tion, i.e. "Spec, typ."; Hamiltonia = Bogada BIkr., but Chanda not mentioned; 

Swain, 1882 — ovata (= nama) for Hamiltonia; Chanda not mentioned; 

Fowler, 1905 — ovata for Hamiltonia; lala for Chanda; misled by assuming lata 
of Swainson not lala Ham. Buch. ; 

Jordan, 1917 — ruconius (or Chanda; 

Jordan, 1919 — ruconius abandoned; ovata (= nama) accepted; Chanda = Hamil- 
tonia ; 

Smith, 1945 — nalua for Chanda; 

Fraser-Brunner, 1954 — ovata (= nama) for Hamiltonia; lala for Chanda. 

Fowler's is the earliest type designation for Chanda if it is distinct from Hamiltonia. 
If the two are synonyms, then Bleeker's prior choice oi ovata ( = nama) must be accepted. 
Since Bleeker dealt with all genera in this and related families but did not give full 
synonymies, then it is reasonable to suppose that he omitted Chanda as a junior 
synonym (presumably of Hamiltonia, although this could be argued). Bleeker's 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

intentions, however, would be irrelevant if it could be shown that Chanda and Hamil- 
tonia were already synonyms, and this would in turn overrule Fowler's designation for 
Chanda. 

Therefore, the nub of the argument is whether Swainson proposed Hamiltonia 
expressly as a substitute for Chanda, or whether it was a new genus that restricted 
Chanda to the seven Hamilton-Buchanan sf)ecies not included in Hamiltonia. Two 
avenues exist to explore Swainson's intentions: was he in the habit of supplying 
replacement names, and what did he do with the remaining species of Cliandal 

The first question can be very convincingly answered. In the second volume of 
the Natural History Swainson replaced nearly sixty existing names by ones of his own 
making, sometimes appending to them the device 'sw.' and sometimes not, sometimes 
citing the original name in parenthesis or in a footnote but more often not. The 
author who suffered most from this spate of replacement names was none other than 
Hamilton-Buchanan, Swainson blithely substituting his own species name on no less 
than thirty occasions. Next come Cuvier and Valenciennes with eight, then Ruppell 
with five and Spix (plates in Spix & Agassiz) with six; Gray, Bennett, Yarrell, Lesueur, 
Freycinet and Pallas were also not neglected. Rarely has there been such a dedicated 
post-Linnaean name-replacer as William Swainson! 

It is pertinent to enquire into Swainson's motives and to ask if they have any 
bearing on the problem of Chanda and Hamiltonia. A list of certain of the names and 
their replacements leaves us in no doubt as to at least one of Swainson's intentions. 
In the case of Hamilton-Buchanan, Swainson replaced noma, lala, bacailia, daurana, 
phasa, soborna, chechra, canio, diida, raitborra and cuchia, for example, by ovata, lala, 
oblonga, vittatus, megalura, argentata, nebulosiis, immaculatus, affinis, maculatus and 
punctatus. Similarly, Forsskal's rogaa, loiiti and murdjan (cited from Ruppell) were 
replaced by phaenistonuis, longipinna and melanoplirys : Cuvier's toeroe by elongatus; 
Gmelin's puntazzo by fasciata; Spix's pirainha by ferox; and Bennett's pepo by 
reticulata. 

A rather obvious pattern emerges and one that Swainson himself spelt out in a 
footnote (p. 309) on Sorubim Spix ( with Platystoma Agassiz placed in parenthesis). 
Swainson says "Platystoma having been used in ornithology, I retain the original 
name (although objectionable) of Spix; but I perfectly agree with Agassiz on the 
impropriety of barbaric names, whether generic or specific." (our italics). Acarana 
Gray, for example, he replaced by his own Platycanthus; Sorubim he rendered as 
Sorubium. 

On a number of occasions Swainson stated his objections to a name and made it 
quite clear that he was proposing a substitute for a generic name and not merely a 
subgenus for the species listed. Thus, he replaced Vomer by Platysomus (p. 250) and 
said that he had done just that (p. 405); elsewhere (p. 407) he found vomer "a term 
altogether objectionable" and replaced it by setifer. He saw no reason why "the 
more ancient and classic name of Psetta, imposed by Aristotle upon this group" 
should be replaced by Rhombus, and still less why Psettus should be transferred to a 
group having no connection with the Psetta of the ancients and probably unknown to 
them (p. 302). His most blatant substitution was Labristoma on the grounds that the 
"name of Pseudochromis is so objectionable, that I hope the learned naturalist who 
proposed it will excuse me for offering another", (p. 230). 

Although Swainson sometimes had other reasons for replacing a name (e.g. 
homonymy of Breviceps, p. 305), it is undeniable that one of his principal concerns was 
to weed out nomenclatural barbarities. In Hamilton-Buchanan's Fishes of the Ganges 
(1822) a large number of species names were taken straight from the Bengali names 
used around Calcutta. Since the majority of Swainson's replacements are for Hamilton- 
Buchanan names, it is diflScult to escape the conclusion that Hamiltonia was nothing but 
a respectable classical garb for the outlandish Bengali Chanda. The argument is 
reinforced by the indisputable replacement within that same genus of the Bengali 
nama and lala by the Latin ovata and lala (the latter surely a latinization, not a mis- 
print). The argument seems to be clinched by Swainson's placing of Chanda in 
parenthesis after the description of Hamiltonia, a procedure exactly followed for 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109 

Platysoma, which Swainson himself admitted to be a replacement for the objectionable 
Vomer. 

Dr. Collette asserts that there is no evidence that Hamiltonia was proposed as a 
substitute for Chanda. We believe otherwise. We consider that Swainson's pre- 
dilection for replacing names, his evident dislike of barbaric names (especially those 
of Hamilton-Buchanan), and his inclusion of Chanda in parenthesis, can only lead to 
one conclusion : Chanda was replaced by Hamiltonia because it was barbaric. We can 
find no plausible counter-argument. 

If a counter-argument existed, it would have to explain Swainson's intentions over 
the remaining species of Chanda: more especially, it would have to show that Swainson's 
omission of species here, and in virtually every other genus or subgenus containing 
more than three or four species, was a positive taxonomic exclusion and not a negative 
one dictated by space, scope, ignorance or lack of figured example. There is evidence 
that the species included by Swainson were the ones known to him, but the counter- 
argument must prove that the ones excluded by him were also known and were 
excluded for that reason. We do not believe this to have been the case. 

Swainson included only two of Hamilton-Buchanan's species of Chanda in his 
Hamiltonia, namely ovata (= noma) and lata (= lala). In both cases the Swainson 
name was based solely on a Hamilton-Buchanan figure (pi. 39, fig. 37 and pi. 21, 
fig. 39 — the latter, by an obvious misprint, given as 37 by Swainson). For Equula, 
Swainson again gave only two species, but out of Cuvier's twenty-two species these 
were the only two that were illustrated. In fact, the majority of Swainson's references 
to species are references to figures. Why then did Swainson omit the other three 
species of Chanda illustrated by Hamilton-Buchanan — ruconiiis (pi. 12, fig. 35), 
ranga (pi. 16, fig. 38) and nahia (pi. 6, fig. 36)? To some extent, the answer is perhaps 
space, the lack of which he mentioned at least three times (pp. 41,61 and 80). Swainson 
was not attempting to rival the all-inclusive Histoire naturelle des poissons of Cuvier 
and Valenciermes. He was arguing a novel scheme of classification, as had Cuvier 
in the Rigne animal iv/enty years before, and he could well have seen Cuvier's book as a 
convenient model. The whole emphasis in Swainson's book is on subgenera, genera 
and upwards, with species rarely discussed and only described in an Appendix (p. 385, 
sixty-two new or little-known fishes). In the majority of cases, Swainson listed only 
one, two or three species under a subgenus. Dr. Collette (in litt.) has pointed to the 
case of Cepola (p. 259), for which nine species are given, and Trigia (p. 262), for which 
no less than fourteen species are listed. We would mention also Dactylophorus 
(p. 262) for which nine species are given. These three genera are exceptions, but the 
reason for this is quite clear: in each case he had made a partial revision in his Appendix 
and thus knew well the species he was listing. Even so, six Trigia species were omitted 
from the list under the heading "&c. See Appendix". 

In the case of Chanda, therefore, there is no precedent for assuming that the omission 
of seven of Hamilton-Buchanan's species (or three illustrated ones) was a positive 
taxonomic act. Even if it was, then one would expect to find them placed elsewhere, 
which they are not. His action here is entirely consistent with placing Chanda in 
parenthesis after the description of Hamiltonia: since Hamiltonia was not a genus but 
a subgenus (of Equula), it cannot be argued that Chanda was but a part of Hamiltonia, 
since the next taxonomic level was the species. 

Collette has chosen to endorse Fowler's type designation of lala for Chanda, 
but even here difficulties arise since Fowler mistakenly assumed that Swainson's 
lata was the same as his ovata (i.e. nama) because of the error in figure numbers 
(fig. 37 for both). Fowler distributed the first eight of Hamilton-Buchanan's species 
of Chanda between the genera Gerres (for setifer), Leiognathus (for ruconius), Ambassis 
(for nalua) and Hamiltonia (for nama. phula, bogoda, baculis and ranga). He was then 
left with lala, already the type of Pseudambassis Bleeker, 1874. If Hamiltonia was 
distinct from Chanda, then by elimination lala must be the type of Chanda, with 
Pseudambassis in synonymy. We find no evidence that Fowler attempted a critical 
appraisal of Swainson's intentions or he would at least have commented on Bleeker's 
omission of Chanda. Jordan's mature choice was ovata (= nama) and he stressed 



110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

that Hamiltonia was a junior synonym of Chanda. The only subsequent dissenters 
were Smith, who followed Cuvier's tactics (exclusion of the first two species of Chanda), 
but with the reverse result (Chanda = Ambassis, not Equula), and Fraser-Brunner 
(who seems uncritically to have followed Fowler's lead). Since Jordan's Genera 
of fishes is usually regarded as a prime source of information on type designations or 
confirmations, it requires a rather critical appraisal if Jordan's decisions are to be 
reversed. In the case of Hamiltonia and Chanda we find no evidence that authors have 
considered the problem in the detail presented here. CoUette's statement, on behalf 
of the Nomenclature Committee, that there is no evidence or proof that Hamiltonia 
was proposed as a substitute for Chanda, seems an insufficient argument in the face 
of the evidence produced here. 

To sum up, it seems inescapable to us that Hamiltonia was proposed as a replace- 
ment in toto for the barbaric Chanda and must, in consequence, share the same type 
species. The first designation of a type appears to have been that of Bleeker in 1874, 
who chose ovata for Hamiltonia. Both were replacement names, as stated by Jordan, 
therefore Chanda nama is the type of Chanda. CoUette's dismay at the loss of a genus- 
group name before a revision has been done should not be allowed to cloud the 
issue because of the dangerous precedent that it might create for other Swainson 
replacement names; neither do we think that, given the indecisive taxonomic state of 
the species and genera involved, there is any cause to conserve a generic name against 
its nomenclatural fate. 

Although the nomenclatural solution is easily effected within the Rules of 
Zoological Nomenclature, we favour a ruling by the Commission and, with Talwar's 
agreement, request the following action : 

(1) to set aside all type-species designations for the genus Chanda Hamilton- 
Buchanan, 1822 made prior to this ruling and to designate Chanda nama 
Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822 as type-species of that genus; 

(2) to recognise Hamiltonia Swainson, 1839 as a junior objective synonym (un- 
justified replacement name) of Chanda Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822, but not to 
reject it permanently (in case of a senior homonym of Clianda); 

(3) to place the generic name Chanda Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822 (gender: feminine), 
type-species Chanda nama Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822, on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology; 

(4) to place the species nama Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822, as published in the 
binomen Chanda nama, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 



COMMENT ON DITYLENCHUS FILIPJEV, 1936 (NEMATODA): 
APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. 

Z.N.(S.) 1955 
(See volume 28, pages 112-113) 

By Henning Lemche {Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, 
Copenhagen, Denmark) 

There seems to be an omission in the proposals. May I suggest to add?: 
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology the 
name Chitinotylenchus Micoletzky, 1822, as suppressed under (1) above. 

By P. A. A. Loof {Department of Nematology, Wageningen) 

I am sending a list of references in which the name Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936 has 
been used during the period 1969-1972. This is in accordance with Article 79(b) 
which requires at least 10 different publications by at least 5 different authors from the 
last 50 years. Ditylenchus is a name widely used in agricultural and economic 
literature. 



Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 111 

VuoNG Huu-Hai & Rodriguez, H. 1970. Agron. trap., Nogent 25 : 52-66 

Moore, J. F. 1971. Ir. J. agric. Res. 10 : 207-21 1 

Caubel, G. 1969. C. r. Iwbd. Scanc. Acad. Agric. Fr. 55 : 497-507 

Planer, F. R. 1972. Nemalohgica \S : 4\1 

Van Os, H. 1971. Ada Hortiaillurae 2 : 38\-3M 

Nelson, G. A. & Hawn, E. J. 1971. Phviopathotogy 61 : 1097-1098 

ViGLiERCHO, D. R. 1971. Nemalologica 17 : 386-392 

Hesling, J. J. 1970. N.A.A.S. q. Rev. 90 : 83-89 

Grujicic, G. 1971. Zast. Bitja 22 : 159-171 

Whitehead, A. G. & Tite, D. J. 1972. PI. Path. 21 : 89-92 

Cayrol, J. C. 1970. .4wits.Zool.-Ecol.anim. 2:321-^1 

Williams, W. M. 1972. N.Z. Jl. agric. Res. 15 : 363-370 

COMMENT ON THE REQUESTED CONFIRMATION OF 

DESIGNATION OF TYPE-SPECIES FOR DONACILLA DE 

BLAINVILLE, 1819 AND AMPHIDESMA LAMARCK, 

1818(BIVALVIA). Z.N.(S.) 1959 
(See volume 28, pages 121-123 and volume 29, page 193) 

By R. V. Melville {Secretary, International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature) 

1. Amphidesma Lamarck, 1818 is an available name for the nominal genus with 
16 included nominal species. Among these sixteen, were Amphidesma rariegala 
Lamarck, 1818 which was the first of the species named and Amphidesma donacilla 
Lamarck, 1818. 

2. Donacilla De Blainville, 1819, must on internal evidence be treated as a 
replacement name for Amphidesma Lamarck, 1818 and, therefore, the type-species of 
one must be the type-species of the other. 

3. The first valid designation of a type-species for Amphidesma was made by 
J. G. Children, 1823 who designated Amphidesma variegata Lamarck. 1818, the type- 
species. 

4. The valid name for this species is Semele pwpurascens (Gmelin, [1791]) re- 
garded as a species of Semele (sensu stricto) by Boss (1972, Johnsonia 5 (49) : 15). 
Semele Schumacher, 1817 is therefore the valid senior synonym of both Amphidesma 
and Donacilla. 

5. It appears on the evidence presented by Dr. Beu that it is desirable to regard 
Donacilla Philippi, 1836 as the valid name for the species known as Mactra cornea 
Poli, 1795. This can only be done if Donacilla De Blainville, 1819 is suppressed for 
the purposes of the Law of Priority and for those of the Law of Homonymy. Dona- 
cilla is not available from its citations by Ferussac, 1822 and Dubois, 1824 because in 
both cases the name was mentioned only in synonymy and has never been adopted as a 
valid name from either of those citations. 

6. The proposals by Dr. Beu and Dr. Rooij-Schuiling can therefore be presented 
in the following way: 

The Commission is requested to : 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Donacilla De Blainville, 

1819 for the purposes for the Law of Priority and for those of the Law of 
Homonymy; 

(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Semele Schumacher, 1817 (gender: feminine), type-species by monotypy 

Semele reticulata Schumacher, 1817 (= Tellina reticulata "Linnaeus" 
Spengler, 1798, non Linnaeus = Tellina proficua Pulteney, 1799) 

(b) Donacilla Philippi, 1836 (gender: feminine), type-species by original 

designation Donacilla lamarcki {= Mactra cornea Poli, 1795) 

Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



1 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

(c) Mesodesma Deshayes, 1832 (gender: neuter), type-species (by subsequent 
designation of Anton, 1839) Mesodesma donacium Deshayes, 1832 = 
Mactra donacia Lamarck, 1818; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the following names: 

(S) proficua Pulteney, 1799 as published in the binomen TelUna proficua 
(the senior synonym of Semele reticulata Schumacher, 1817, type-species 
of Seme/e Schumacher, 1817); 

(ii) cornea Poli, 1 795 (the senior synonym of Donacilta lamarcki, type-species 
of Donacilla Philippi) as published in the binomen Mactra cornea; 

(iii) donacia Lamarck, 1818, as published in the binomen Mactra donacia; 

(4) to place the following generic names on the OflScial Index of Rejected and 

Invalid Names in Zoology: 

(a) Donacilla De Blainville, 1819 as suppressed under the plenary powers in 

(1) above; 
(h) Amphidesma Lamarck, 1818, type-species by subsequent designation by 

Children, 1823, Amphidesma variegata Lamarck, 1818. 

COMMENT ON PALAEOFA VOSITES TWENHOFEL, 1914 

(ANTHOZOA, TABULATA): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER 

THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1961 

(See volume 28, pages 158-160) 

By Klemens Oekentorp (Geol.-Paldont. Inst. ii. Museum, 44 MiinslerlWestf., 
Glevenbecker Weg 61) 

The following is a list of references in which the name Pataeofavosites Twenhofel, 
1914 has been used in recent years. The list is in accordance with Article 79(b) of the 
Code which requires evidence that the name that is threatened has been used by at 
least five different authors in at least ten different publications in the last fifty years. 
I had no difficulty in providing a list of fifty-two references and more can be found 
in Fliigel, H. W. 1970. Bibliographic der paldozoischen Anthozoa (Rugosa, Hetero- 
corallia, Tabutata, Heliolitida, Trachypsammiacea) I. Bibliographic. II. Index zur 
Bibliographic., Wien. Pataeofavosites is cited in part II on page 193. 

Those papers in which new species of the genus Pataeofavosites are cited are marked 
by an asterisk. 

Citations 
*CER^fYSEV, B. B. 1937. Silurijskie i devonskie Tabulata Mongolii i Tuvy. Trudy 

mongor. Kom. 6 (30) : 1-31 
*PouLSEN, C. 1941. The Silurian faunas of North Greenland. 2. The fauna of 

the Offley Island Formation. Part 1. Coelenterata. Meddr Grenland 

72 (2) : 27 pp. 
*SoKOLOv, B. S. 1950. Silurijskie korally zapada Sibirskoj platformy. Vop. 

Paleont. 1 : 211-242 
* 1951. Tabuljaty paleozoja Evropejskoj casti SSSR. Part 1. Ordovik 

Zapadnogo Urala i Pribaltiki. Trudy vses. neft. nauchnoissled. geol.-razv. 

Inst. (Nov. Ser.)4» : 1-132 
* 1951. Tabuljaty paleozoja Evropejskoj casti SSSR. Part 2. Silur Pribaltiki. 

(Favozitidy llandoverskogo jarusa). Trudy vses. neft. nauchno-issled. geol.-ravz. 

Inst. (Nov. Ser.) 52 : 1-124 
• 1952. Tabuljaty paleozoja Evropejskoj casti SSSR. Part 3. Silur Pribaltiki. 

(Favozitidy venlokskogo i ludlovskogo jarusa). Trudy vses. neft. nauchno- 
issled. geol.-razv. Inst. (Nov. Ser.) 58 : 1-185 
♦IvANOv, A. N. & Mjagkova, E. J. 1955. Fauna ordovika zapadnogo sklona 

srednego Urala. Trudy gorno-geol. Inst. UraT. Fil. 23 : 9-75 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113 

*Stearn, C. W. 1956. Stratigraphy and paleontology of the Interlake group and 

Stonewall formation of southern Manitoba. Mem. geol. Survey Brch Canada 

281 : 152 pp. 
•Klaamann, E. R. 1962. Rasprostranenie ordovikskich i silurijskich tabuljat 

Estonii (s opisaniem nekotorych novych vidov). Geoloogia Inst. Uurim 10 : 

149-172 
*Flower, R. H. 1961. Monloya and related colonial corals. Mem. Inst. Min. 

Mexico Bureau Min. 7 : 97 pp. 
•Yu, C. M. 1956. Some Silurian corals from the Chiuchiian Basin, western Kansu. 

Acta palaeont. Sin. 4 : 599-620. In Chinese, with English summary 
*Stasinska, a. 1967. Tabulata from Norway, Sweden and from the Erratic 

Boulders of Poland. Palaeont. pal. 18 : 9-1 12 
Oekentorp, K. & ScHOUPPE, A. 1969. Kritische Betrachtungen uber die Anord- 

nung der Poren bei Palaeofavosiles Twenhofel, 1914. Neues Jb. Geol. Palaont. 

Abh. 133 : 89-100 
Hill, D. & Stumm, E. C. 1956: Tabulata: F444^F477. In: Moore, R. C. (Ed) 

Treatise on Invertebrate Palaeontology. Part F. Coelenterata. Geological 

Society of America and University of Kansas Press 



PROPONENT'S COMMENT ON EFFECT OF ARTICLE 29(d) ON THE 

APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION OF CERTAIN NAMES ON THE 

OFFICL\L LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES. Z.N.(S.) 1965 

(See volume 29, pages 26-27) 

By George C. Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research 
Service, cjo U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) 

1 . In the two years that have elapsed since the submission of my application for 
correction of certain names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, 
the new Article 29(d) was added to the Code at the XVIIth International Congress of 
Zoology held at Monaco in September 1972. My application was published in May 
1972 and comment on it was made by Dr. Theresa Clay in December 1972 {Bull, 
zool. Nomencl., 29 : 199). Article 29(d) appeared in somewhat different form in the 
agenda for the Monaco meeting in August 1972 {ibid.: 99) and was acted upon one 
month later {ibid.: 189). 

2. Aside from any reservations I may have as to the degree to which the new 
Article 29(d) represents the opinion of the majority of zoologists, it was evidently 
adopted in a regular manner and is now a part of the Code. It is therefore now 
necessary that an incorrectly formed family-group name proposed before 1961 be 
proved to be not in general use before it may be corrected. It seems highly doubtful 
to me that this procedure will lead to greater stability in nomenclature than the follow- 
ing of a rule of general application, especially one dealing with Latin grammar as does 
Article 29, which is the codification of a practice in effect virtually since the inception 
of the Linnaean system. 

3. In response to the comment by Theresa Clay, I would like to point out that even 
if the "majority of zoologists using names are totally ignorant of classical grammar" 
they still must follow its rules when proposing new names, even those in the family 
group. If enough knowledge of classical grammar is needed to follow the rules 
in proposing new names, certainly no more such knowledge is needed to make old 
names conform to the same rules. We now must determine whether or not both of 
the names Trinotonidae and Gyropidae are in sufficient general use to remain un- 
corrected. There could be a considerable amount of discussion and at least a sizeable 
amount of work to determine accurately and objectively just how general, for example, 
is the use of Pyralididae as against Pyralidae. It should also be noted that Mayr's 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

wording of the proposal for the new Article in the agenda included the word "uni- 
versal" instead of "general", a word of distinctly different meaning. The question still 
remains whether the many family-group names, at least in insects, that have been 
corrected in conformance with Article 29 should not now revert to their former "gen- 
eral use". At least the problem of determining how general has become the use of the 
corrected forms is not slight. 

4. In view of the fact that the subject names were contrary to the rules in force at 
the time they were added to the Official List, I believe that my proposal should stand 
as it is, that is, as a proposal to place the subject names on the same footing as those 
others which were placed on it before the adoption of Article 29(d). 



COMMENT ON PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS PTERODACTYLUS CRASSIPES 

MEYER, 1857 AND COUNTER-PROPOSAL TO RECOGNIZE 

ARCHAEOPTERYX LITHOGRAPHICA MEYER, 1861, AND TO FIX ITS 

TYPE-SPECIES. Z.N,(S.) 1977 

By Eugene Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A., 

CImirman, Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the 

International Ornithological Congress) 

In a worthy effort to ensure the continuing validity of the well-known Archaeopteryx 
lithographica Meyer, 1861 for the earliest recognized fossil remains of a bird (Jurassic), 
Dr. J. H. Ostrom has applied for the complete suppression of an earlier unused name, 
previously (1857) proposed by Meyer for fossil remnants from the same Solenhofen 
limestone beds, in the belief that they represented a flying reptile. Dr. Ostrom states 
his conviction that both fossil remains relate to the same bird species (Bull. zool. 
Nomencl., 29 : 30-31), and he is concerned that crassipes has priority. We support the 
applicant's aim to preserve Archaeopteryx lithographica, one of the most famous 
names in zoology and paleontology, and already on the Official List; but we suggest 
that to accomplish this, it is unnecessary totally to suppress the name crassipes. 

2. As the type material of Plerodactylus crassipes consists, according to Dr. 
Ostrom, only of fragmentary skeletal remains, it is possible that, even if of a bird, it 
may represent a species different from A. lithographica; it is therefore desirable to 
preserve the available name. In saying this we are not questioning Dr. Ostrom's 
conclusion of identity (as to which we have no competence), but are pointing out a 
factual possibility, which involves a taxonomic issue, not within the proper sphere of 
the Commission. To protect lithographica does not require the complete suppression 
of crassipes. A. lithographica is already on the Official List, and the Commission may 
now rule (if necessary by exercise of the Plenary Powers) that name be applied as the 
valid name of the species, regardless of the applicability and priority of crassipes, or 
any other name that may be unearthed. This would leave crassipes available if 
considered applicable to a different species. 

3. Dr. Ostrom's application also discusses the contention, which has been made 
by a few zoologists, that Meyer's name Archaeopteryx lithographica was applied only 
to an unidentifiable single feather imprint, and not to the oft-pictured fossil skeleton, 
which has long been in the British Museum (Natural History) and for which the name 
has been used almost universally. To end any further nomenclatural question, we 
ask that the Commission rule that the type-specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica 
Meyer, 1861, is the animal, considered a Jurassic bird, whose fossil skeletal remains in 
Solenhofen limestone have long been in the British Museum. 

It is therefore requested that the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature : 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115 

(1) exercise its Plenary Powers to rule: 

(a) that the name Pleiodactyliis crassipes Meyer, 1 857 is not to be given priority 

over the name Arclmeopteryx lithographica Meyer, 1861, by any 
zoologist who believes that those names apply to the same species- 
group taxon; 

(b) that the type-specimen of Arclmeopteryx lithographica Meyer, 1861, is the 

species whose fossil skeletal remains, imbedded in Solenhofen lime- 
stone, Kimmeridgian, are in the British Museum (Natural History), 
bearing catalogue No. 37001. 



COMMENT ON SCHISTODERA COBB, 1920 (NEMATODA: 

ENOPLIDA), A REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION; OXYSTOMINA 

FILIPJEV, 1921 PROPOSED FOR THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 2031 

(See volume 30, pages 102-103) 

By R. V. Melville {Secretary, International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature) 

The generic name Oxystomina first appears in the legend on Plate 2 of Filipjev's 
two part presentation. The plates are bound after the first 22 sheets of Part I, 1918 
and before sheets 23-39 of Part 2, 1921. We are grateful to Dr. Bruce E. Hopper of 
the Plant Protection Division, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada, for 
bringing this fact to our attention. 

Bound in front of the title page is a note printed in Russian, which translates as: 
"After the binding, the title page and the foreword of the first part have been discarded, 
the rest follows as : 

1 . Title page, foreword and the table of contents (from part I) 

2. Sheets 1-22 (from part I) 

3. Sheets 23-39 (from part II) 

4. Plates 1-1 1 (from part I)'". 

Then, on page iv of the foreword is a list of the publication dates of the separate 
sheets. This is translated as follows : 

1 — April 1916 19 — September 1917 

2- 4 — May 1916 20-22 — March 1918 

5- 9 — September 1916 23-24 — March 1918 

10-11 — January 1917 25-26 — July 1918 

12-13 — April 1917 27 — December 1918 

14 — February 1917 28-32 — October 1921 

15-17 — April 1917 33-39 — December 1921 

18 — February 1918 
This list is followed by this sentence: "The first part (sheets 1-22) appeared in 
November 1918, the second is appearing now". (This foreword was written by 
I. N. Filipjev and is dated Petrograd, 1 December 1921). 

Thus, the date of publication of Oxystomina is 1918 and not 1921 as given in the 
application, and Oxystomina is an available name from 1918. (Article 12; 16(a) 
(vii)). On plate 2, Oxystomina clavicauda n.sp. and Oxystomina filiformis n.sp. 
are both named and figured and therefore, one of these two species should be designated 
as the type-species for Oxystomina (Article 69(a)). In order thai Oxystoma elongatum 
Biitschli, 1874, may be designated as the type-species, the plenary powers must be 
invoked. 

Therefore the proposals put forward by W. D. Hope and D. G. Murphy are here 

amended and the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: 

(I) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the 

nominal genus Oxystomina Filipjev, 1918, made prior to the requested Ruling and, 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

having done so, to designate Oxystoma elongatum Biitschli, 1874, to be the type-species 
of that genus; 

(2) to place the generic name Oxystomina Filipjev, 1918 (gender: feminine), 
typ)e-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Oxystoma elong- 
gatum Biitschli, 1874, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; 

(3) to place the specific name elongatum Biitschli, 1874, as published in the binomen 
Oxystoma elongatum (type-species of Oxystomina Filipjev, 1918) on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology. 

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES 
FOR CERITHWM BRUGUI£RE [1789]. Z.N.(S.) 2032 

By Walter O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, N.Z.) 

Houbrick (1973, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 30 : 104-107) requested the Commission 
to suppress previous type-species designation for Cerithium Bruguiere [1789] and to 
designate C. adansonii Bruguiere, 1792, as the type-species of Cerithium. 

The type-species of Cerithium has been a source of confusion for many years and 
Dr. Houbrick's petition for the designation of C. adansonii as the type-species of 
Cerithium will solve taxonomic problems and is therefore strongly supported. How- 
ever, is Montfort's type designation (1810, Conch. Syst., 2 : 511) of C. virgatum 
Montfort, 1810, as the type-species of Cerithium Bruguiere [1789] really valid? 
Bruguiere (1792, Encycl. meth. vers, 1 : 467-501) does not actually cite a C. virgatum 
by name, either as a valid species or as a synonym. While all of Bruguiere's species 
subsequently referred to the genus Cerithium are all equally eligible for type selection, 
C. virgatum was not among these originally included species (Art. 69(a)(i) of the Code). 
There may have been a type designation by Montfort by inference due to the inclusion 
of Murex vertagus Linnaeus, in the synonymy of Cerithium virgatum Montfort, but the 
Code does not provide for this kind of type-species designation. 

Schumacher (1817, Essai nouv. syst., pp. 223, 227) did not select any type-species at 
all. On p. 223 he lists Cerithium which he properly credits to Bruguiere and not 
Lamarck, and on the following page includes in the genus-group the species C. palustre, 
C. nodulosum and C. aluco without selecting a type-species. The second group 
referred to by Dr. Houbrick is the genus Vertagus Schumacher, 1817 (non Link, 1807) 
which appeared on p. 227 and includes the species V. vulgaris and V. granularis, 
without a formal designation of a type-species. 

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO PLACE LEUCOSPIS GIGAS 

FABRICIUS, 1793 ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC 

NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. Z.N.(S.) 2038 

By B. D. Burks {Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560) 

I am in favour of the action to place Leucospis gigas Fabricius, 1 793, on the Official 
List. The specific name should be preserved, because it is widely used in zoological 
literature in the fields of biology, taxonomy, and faunistics. Dalla Torre, Catalogus 
Hymenopterorum volume 5, 1898, includes 26 references to papers about gigas. In 
addition, the literature files in the U.S. National Museum include references to 29 
papers on gigas that were published after 1898. This total does not include papers 
that are essentially faunal lists. Examples of two of the latter are Breland, 1940, 

Faune de la France VII, Hymenopteres, where he states (in French) '^Leucospis F 

5 species in France, the most common being L. gigas" or Boucek, 1957, Klic Zvireny 
CSR, n, p. 208, where he states (in Czech) that gigas was taken "near Bratislava". 

I have never been in favour of the strict application of the rule of priority when it 
would entail the suppression of a name that has been widely used in non-taxonomic 
literature. Leucospis gigas is one such. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117 

OPINION 1019 

BYRSOCRYPTA HALIDAY, 1838 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA, 
APHIDIDAE): SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

RULING. — (I) Under the plenary powers the generic name Byrsocrypta 
Haliday, 1838, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but 
not for those of the Law of Homonymy. 

(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Pemphigus Hartig, 1839 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation 
by Fitch, 1855, Aphis bursaria Linnaeus, 1758, with the Name Number 
1999; 

(h) Tetraneura Hartig, 1841 (gender: feminine), type-species by subsequent 
monotypy. Aphis ulmi Linnaeus, 1758, with the Name Number 2000. 

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : 

(a) bursaria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Aphis bursaria 

(type-species of Pemphigus Hartig, 1839) (Name No. 2527); 

(b) ulmi Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Aphis ulmi (type- 

species of Tetraneura Hartig, 1841) (Name No. 2528). 

(4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: 

(a) Byrsocrypta Haliday, 1 838 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in 

(1) above) (Name No. 2047); 

(b) Brysocrypta Westwood, 1840 (an incorrect spelling for Byrsocrypta 

HaUday, 1838) (Name No. 2048). 

(5) The following family-group name is hereby placed on the Official List 
of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number specified : 

PEMPHiGiNi (emendation of pemphigiden Koch, 1837) (type-genus Pemphigus 
Hartig, 1839) (Name No. 476). 



HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 431) 

The present case was first submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. 
F. C. Hottes in July 1949. After considerable discussion and amendment 
the application was rewritten with the help of Dr. V. F. Eastop and resubmitted 
in April 1962. It was sent to the printer on 21 May 1962 and published on 26 
April 1962 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 201-203. Public Notice of the possible 
use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the 
Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution 
Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials. 
The application was supported by Dr. Hille Ris Lambers and Dr. Miriam 
A. Palmer. 



Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 1 December 1964 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (64)26 either for or against the 
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 203. At the close of the pre- 
scribed voting period on 1 March 1965 the state of voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — twenty-three (23), received in the following order: 
China, Boschma, Mayr, Simpson, Bonnet, do Amaral, Lemche, Riley, Uchida, 
Miller, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Yokes, Tortonese, Evans, Holthuis, Ride, Brinck, 
Binder, Kraus, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado. 

Negative votes — none (0). 

Voting papers not returned — two (2): Hubbs, Munroe. 

Doctors Borchsenius and Stoll returned late affirmative votes. 

Dr. C. W. Sabrosky did not vote but returned his voting paper with the 
following statement requesting re-consideration of the case. 

Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (19.1.1965): "I believe that this case needs reconsider- 
ation. In my opinion. Pemphigus is not threatened. I am informed that while 
Tetraneura has been used more than Byrsocrypta, there has been some use of the 
latter, and suspension may or may not be justified for that alone. One 
essential point is the determination of the species eligible for selection as type 
of Byrsocrypta. Proper interpretation of Haliday's paper is critical here. 
Haliday's article, to quote the full title, deals with "New British Insects indicated 
in Mr. Curtis's Guide", and is a continuation of pp. 112-121 in the October 
1 838 issue of the same journal. A short introductory paragraph (p. 1 12) states 
that the references are to the genera and species as numbered in the second 
edition of that Guide (Curtis's well known "A Guide to an Arrangement of 
British Insects", second edition, London, 1837), and where the Appendix is 
referred to, the number of the Column is given (the work consists of two num- 
bered columns per unnumbered page). The Guide, merely a list of names in 
taxonomic order, consists of intermingled manuscript names and names already 
published, with authors stated. Haliday's article furnishes descriptions for 
many of the manuscript names. One must therefore go back to Curtis's Guide 
for understanding the often brief references in Haliday. 

"The statement quoted by Hottes and Eastop appears on p. 190 as the 
closing part of an "Obs. [ervation]" (i.e., a note) under "Eriosoma pallida 
C.App. 279". In Curtis's Guide, Appendix (called "Addenda" in the list 
itself), column 279, appears the following: 

1046^ ADELGES 

1. Laricis 

2. Ulmigallarum Schr. 

3. pallidus 

"In Curtis's format, 1046^ signified a subdivision of genus 1046, which was 
Eriosoma in column 218 of the main body of the work. The first species, 
laricis, is stated by Haliday (1838: 190) to be laricis Vallot; it does not concern 
the present problem. The second species, ulmigallarum, is clearly credited to 
Schrank, though Schrank wrote it gallarum ulmi and credited it to De Geer. 
The third species was described and made available by Haliday (1838: 189) as 
Eriosoma pallida. Haliday's article clearly listed two nominal species, pallida 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 119 

Haliday and ulmigallarum Schrank, as species inhabiting "closed follicles" and 
therefore associated with his new genus Byrsocrypta. It follows that these two 
species are the originally included nominal species eligible for type selection. 
This was recognized by Fitch (1855) in the footnote partially cited by Hottes 
and Eastop; 'Mr. Haliday first proposed the genus Byrsocrypta ... pXacmg 
under this genus the Aphis Ulmi of Geoffroy, and a new species which he names 
pallida.' 

"It is clear that Byrsocrypta does not include Aphis bursaria Linnaeus, and 
thus does not threaten Pemphigus. The main purpose of the application is thus 
unnecessary. 

"It is not so clear which other generic name is threatened by Byrsocrypta. 
Strictly speaking, Fitch does not mention the originally included nominal 
species ulmigallarum Schrank (which is actually gallarum ulmi De Geer), though 
it is clear what species he is discussing, and it is clear through the accepted 
synonymies of the works in question that Schrank referred to De Geer, who 
referred to Aphis ulmi Geoffroy, which is Aphis ulmi Linnaeus. 

"If Fitch is construed not to have designated the type of Byrsocrypta then 
Byrsocrypta and Tetraneura have the same type-species, as Fitch recognized 
("Consequently the name Byrsocrypta must be retained for the genus which has 
Ulmi for its type, namely the Tetraneura of Hartig"). 

"If Fitch is construed not to have fixed the type, then the oldest type desig- 
nation for Byrsocrypta appears to be that of Tullgren (1909), who designated 
Eriosoma pallida Haliday. Byrsocrypta would then be the senior synonym of 
the relatively recent name Kaltenbachiella Schouteden (1906). It may be noted 
that Tullgren adopted the name Byrsocrypta, applying it as a subgenus of 
Tetraneura. 

"I note in passing that the reference given for Fitch (1855) is incorrect. The 
page 7 footnote refers to a separate edition of this First New York Report by 
Fitch, the separate being published in 1856. In the Transactions, vol. 14, his 
Report occupies pp. 705-880. I believe the page of the footnote to be 711, 
but I do not have the original work readily available to check this". 

Dr. Eastop replied: "I should have thought that Sabrosky's comments 
strengthened the grounds for the suppression of Byrsocrypta. There has never 
been any doubt about the application of the generic names Pemphigus, Tetra- 
neura, Colopha, and Kaltenbachiella. Byrsocrypta has been used for the first 
of these and Sabrosky has suggested that it might be the correct name for 
Kaltenbachiella. While this may well be true, it seems more desirable to me to 
suppress Byrsocrypta and to retain the names which have been used consistently". 

The following note is from the Secretary, Mr. R. V. Melville: "It appears that 
Dr. Sabrosky's comment provides additional information and that his con- 
clusion — that Pemphigus is not threatened by Byrsocrypta — is indeed the correct 
one. Nevertheless, Dr. Eastop shows that Byrsocrypta has been used with 
various meanings and that its continued validity would constitute a threat to 
the stabihty of nomenclature. Since the decision of the Commission has 
confirmed the stabihty of Pemphigus, and since Dr. Sabrosky's scholarly 
contribution does not affect the principles and objectives of the application, 
it has been decided not to re-open the case". 



120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Original References 

The following are the original references for names placed on the Official 
List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : 
Pemphigus Hartig, 1839, Jahresber. Fortschr. Forstwiss.-Naturk im Jahre 

1836 u. 1837 1 (4) : 645 
Brysocrypta Westwood, 1840 (an incorrect spelling for Byrsocrypta Haliday, 

1838), Introd. mod. Classif. Ins. London., Synopsis: 118 
Byrsocrypta Haliday, 1838, Ann. nat. Hist. 2 (9): 190 
bursaria. Aphis, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 453 
PEMPHiGiNi (emendation of pemphigiden) Koch, 1857, Die Pflanzenlaiise 

Aphiden. NUrnberg: viii 
ulmi. Aphis, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 451 
Tetraneura Hartig, 1841, Z. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 366 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (64)26 were cast as set out above, 
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under 
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the 
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1019. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
8 March 1974 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 121 

OPINION 1020 

PLEUROACANTHITES CAN AVARl, 1883 (CEPHALOPODA, 

LYTOCERATINA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER 

THE PLENARY POWERS 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations for the 
type-species of the nominal genus Pleuroacanthites Canavari, 1 883, are hereby 
set aside, and the nominal species Ammonites biformis J. de C. Sowerby, 1831 is 
hereby designated to be the type of that genus. 

(2) The entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for Pleuro- 
acanthites, Name Number 1381 shall now indicate that the type-species Ammoni- 
tes biformis J. de C. Sowerby was designated by the plenary powers. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1940) 

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. 
M. K. Howarth in October 1970. Dr. Howarth's application was sent to the 
printer on 10 March 1971 and was published on 10 August 1970 in Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 28 : 62-63. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers 
in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the 
other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
21 : 1 84), and to two palaeontological serials. The proposals were supported by 
Professor D. T. Donovan. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 28 November 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)11 either for or against the 
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 63. At the close of the prescribed 
voting period on 28 February 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — twenty (20), received in the following order: Holthuis, 
Lemche, Mayr, Yokes, Tortonese, Willink, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Melville, 
Eisenmann, Habe, Binder, Alvarado, Rohdendorf, Bayer, Heppell, Nye, 
Bernardi, Ride, Kraus. 

Negative votes — none (0). 

On Leave of Absence — one (1): Simpson. 

Voting Papers not returned — three (3): Brinck, Munroe, Starobogatov. 

Dr. Dupuis abstained from voting and Doctors Erben and Corliss returned 
late affirmative votes. 

In returning his voting paper Dr. Dupuis made the following comment 
(30.xi.l973): "Je refuse de voter, I'auteur de la proposition n'ayant pas precise 
le contenu possible des Lytoceras armati [les Lytoceras armes]; il declare que 
L. armati nest pas un nom zoologique correctement forme; en fait ce n'est pas 
du tout un nom zoologique, mais un nom de genre avec un determinatif pluriel — 
II faudrait reexaminer tout cela". 



Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Original References 

The following is the original reference for the type-species of Pleuroacanthiles 
Canavari, 1883: 
biformis. Ammonites, J. de C. Sowerby, 1831, in De la Beche, Geol. Man.: 319. 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (73)1 1 were cast as set out above, 
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under 
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the 
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1020. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
13 March 1974 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123 

OPINION 1021 

CLINUS ACULEATUS REINHARDT, 1837 (PISCES, BLENNIOIDEI) : 
SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name aculeatus 
Reinhardt, 1837, as published in the binomen Clinus aculeatus, is hereby sup- 
pressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The specific name maculatus Fries, 1838, as published in the binomen 
Clinus maculatus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2529. 

(3) The specific name aculeatus Reinhardt, 1837, as suppressed under the 
plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected 
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 994. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1941) 

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. 
J. G. Nielsen in October 1970. Dr. Nielsen's application was sent to the 
printer on 18 March 1971 and was published on 10 August 1971 in Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 28 : 64. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was 
given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial 
publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to one 
specialist serial. The application was supported by the Nomenclature Com- 
mittee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists per Dr. 
B. B. Collette (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29 : 110). 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 28 November 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)12 either for or against the 
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 64. At the close of the prescribed 
voting period on 28 February 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — sixteen (16), received in the following order: Holthuis, 
Lemche, Mayr, Yokes, Tortonese, Willink, Jaczewski, Melville, Eisenmann, 
Habe, Binder, Alvarado, Bayer, Heppell, Ride, Kraus. 

Negative votes — four (4) : Dupuis, Rohdendorf, Nye, Bernardi. 

On leave of absence — one (1): Simpson. 

Voting Papers not returned — three (3) : Brinck, Munroe, Starobogatov. 

Commissioners Erben and Corliss returned a late affirmative vote. Com- 
missioner Sabrosky abstained from voting. 

In returning their voting papers the following comments were made by 
Commissioners; 

Dr. C. Dupuis (30.11.1973): "Simple respect de la priorite". 

Prof. E. Mayr (3.xii.l973): "In the Opinion to be issued it should be stated 
that this decision conforms to Article 23b (or its post-Monaco equivalent)". 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

This application had been made to the Commission before the XVIIth 
International Congress on Zoology held at Monaco in September 1972. In their 
comment the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists {Bull. 
29 : 110) provide four references in which the name maculatus has been used in 
the last fifty years. In accordance with Article 79(b) the following six references 
are Usted in which the name maculatus was used : 
DuNCKER, G. & MOHR, E. W. 1929. In: Grimpe, G. & Wagler, E. Die 

Tierwelt der Nord- und Ostsee 12 (12): Xllg Leipzig, 97-98 
ScHNAKENBECK, W. 1934. In: JoimiN, L. [Ed.] Faune ichthyol. Atlant. N. 

Copenhagen: pi. 316 
Jensen, A. S. 1944. Spolia zool. Mus. haun. 4 : 31-32 
Saemundsson, B. 1949. Marine Pisces. Zoology of Iceland, 4 (12): 36, 136 
Andriashev, a. p. 1954. Keys to the Fauna of the U.S.S.R., Zool. Inst., 

Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R., Moskwa-Leningrad No. 53: 248-250 
Wheeler, A. 1969. The Fishes of the British Isles and North-West Europe, 

Macmillan, London: 444 

Prof. B. B. Rohdendorf (II. u.\974): "I vote against suppression action for 
the specific name aculeatus Reinhardt, 1837 as it is contrary to the Law of 
Priority". 

Dr. I. W. B. Nye (27.ii.1974): "Although I would support the nomenclatural 
proposal to place Clinus maculatus on the Official List, thereby giving it pre- 
cedence over any other name for the species; I am against the proposal to place 
its subjective synonym on the Official Index, thereby rejecting it for ever. To 
ask the Commission to do so is not only unnecessary but is seeking an endorse- 
ment of a subjective synonymy when no evidence has been provided on which 
to base a judgement". 

Prof. G. Bernardi (18.ii.l974): "Comme de nombreux entomologistes je suis 
oppose a la "regie des 50 ans" et je considere, en ce qui concerne les noms du 
groupe-espece, qu'une erreur ne doit pas etre acceptee meme si elle est de longue 
duree". 

Original References 

The following are the original references for names placed on the Official 
List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : 
aculeatus, Clinus, Reinhardt, 1837, Ichthyologiske Bidrag til den grenlandske 

Fauna. Kobenhavn. : 1-122 
maculatus, Clinus, Fries, 1838, K. svenska VetenskAkad. Handl. 1837 : 51 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (73)12 were cast as set out above, 
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under 
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the 
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1021. 

R. V. MELVILLE, Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London, 14 March 1974 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125 

OPINION 1022 

CTENODONTA ELONGATA SALTER, 1873 (MOLLUSCA, BIVALVIA): 
SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name elongata 
Salter, 1873 as published in the binomen Ctenodonta elongata is hereby sup- 
pressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : 

(a.) menapiensis Hicks, 1873, as published in the binomen Ctenodonta 

menapiensis (Name No. 2530); 
(b) cambriensis Hicks, 1873 as published in the binomen Ctenodonta cam- 

briensis (Name No. 2531). 

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 
specified : 

(a) elongata Salter, 1 873, as pubUshed in the binomen Ctenodonta elongata 

(Name No. 995); 

(b) rotunda Salter, 1873, as published in the binomen Ctenodonta rotunda (a 

nomen nudum) (Name No. 996); 

(c) rotunda Hicks, 1873, as published in the binomen Ctenodonta rotunda 

(unavailable under Article 11(d)) (Name No. 997). 

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1945) 

The present application was submitted to the office of the Commission by 
Dr. R. M. Carter on 18 November 1970. The application was sent to the 
printer on 8 July 1971 and was published on 8 December 1971 in Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 28 : 102-103. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers 
was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial 
publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two 
palaeontological serials. The application was supported by John Pojeta, Jr. 
and a comment by Dr. Lemche was published in Bull. 29 : 64. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 28 November 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)13 either for or against the 
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 103 and as modified by those in 
Bull. 29 : 64. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 28 February 1974 
the state of the voting was as follows : 

Affirmative votes — nineteen (19), received in the following order: Holthuis, 
Lemche, Mayr, Yokes, Tortonese, Willink, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Melville, 
Eisenmann, Habe, Binder, Alvarado, Rohdendorf, Bayer, Nye, Bernardi, 
Ride, Kraus. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Negative votes — none (0). 

Abstentions — one (1): Heppell. 

On Leave of Absence — one (1): Simpson. 

Voting papers not returned — four (4): Brinck, Munroe, Starobogatov, 
Dupuis. 

Dr. John Corliss returned a late affirmative vote and in returning his Voting 
Paper after the closing date Prof. Dr. Erben did not indicate for or against 
the proposals but stated that he was in agreement with Dr. Lemche. In 
returning his voting paper Mr. David Heppell made the following comment 
(26.ii.1974): "I vote for proposals (1) and (3)(a), (b), (c) as modified by Dr. 
Lemche, but against his proposals (2)(a), (b) as I believe this is a case where 
possible reidentification or synonymy might be prejudiced by the addition of 
the current names to the Official List. This action seems to be rendered un- 
necessary by the suppression of the names which threatened those in present 
use". 

Original References 

The following are the original references for the names placed on the Official 
Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in this Opinion: 
cambriensis, Ctenodonta, Hicks, 1 873, Q. Jl geol. Soc. Land. 29 : 47 
elongata, Ctenodonta, Salter, 1873, A catalogue of the Cambrian and Silurian 

fossils contained in the Geological Museum of Cambridge, Cambridge: 24 
menapiensis, Ctenodonta, Hicks, 1873, Q. Jl geol. Soc. Land. 29 : 47 
rotunda, Ctenodonta Hicks, 1873, Q. Jl geol. Soc. Land. 29 : 47 
rotunda, Ctenodonta Salter, 1873, A catalogue of the Cambrian and Silurian 

fossils contained in the Geological Museum of Cambridge, Cambridge: 24 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (73)13 were cast as set out above, 
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under 
the plenary powers, that the decision so taken, being the decision of the 
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1022. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
15 March 1974 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127 

OPINION 1023 

CASSIDAE (MOLLUSCA) AND CASSIDINAE (INSECTA): PLACED 
ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers, it is hereby ruled that the stem of 
the generic name Cassis Scopoli, 1777, for the purposes of Article 29 is cass-. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family- 
Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: 

(a) CASSIDAE (an emendation under the plenary powers of cassidites) 

Latreille, 1825 (type-genus Cassis Scopoli, 1777) (Name No. 477); 

(b) CASSIDINAE (correction of cassidiadae) Stephens, 1831 (type-genus 

Cassida Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 478). 

(3) The following generic 'names are hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: 

(a) Cassis Scopoli, 1777 (gender: feminine), type-species by subsequent 
designation by Montfort, 1810, Buccimim cormitum Linnaeus, 1758 
(Name No. 2001); 

(h) Cassida Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type-species by subsequent 
designation by Spaeth, 1914, Cassida nebulosa Linnaeus, 1758. 

(4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: 

(a) cornutum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Buccinum conmtum 

(type-species of Cassis Scopoli, 1777) (Name No. 2532); 

(b) nebulosa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cassida nebulosa, 

(type-species of Cassida Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 2533). 

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1938) 

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. 
A. G. Beu in January 1971. The application was sent to the printer on 10 March 
1971 and was published on 10 August 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 56-58. 
Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was 
given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial 
publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to four 
specialist serials. The application was supported by Dr. H. A. Rehder (Bull. 
29 : 2; 30 : 3) and Dr. W. O. Cernohorsky {Bull. 29 : 109). 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 28 November 1973 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (73)9 either for or against the 
proposals as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 57-58 and modified in Bull. 
29 : 109 and in Bull. 30 : 3. At the close of the voting period on 28 February 
1974 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — twenty (20), received in the following order: Holthuis, 
Lemche, Mayr, Yokes, Tortonese, Willink, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Melville, 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Eisenmann, Habe, Binder, Alvarado, Rohdendorf, Bayer, Heppell, Nye, 
Bernardi, Ride, Kraus. 

Negative votes — none (0). 

Abstentions — one (1): Dupuis. 

On Leave of Absence — one (1): Simpson. 

Voting Papers not returned — three (3): Brinck, Munroe, Starobogatov. 

Drs. Erben and Corliss returned late affirmative votes, although Prof. Dr. 
Erben's affirmative vote was provisional (see his comment). 

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their 
votes : 

Dr. C. Dupuis (30.xi.l973): "Je refuse de voter sur les deux cas simultane- 
ment". 

Dr. H. Lemche (2.xii.l973): "As the above references are partly contra- 
dictory, [those pertaining to the proposals], I might explain that I am voting in 
favour of cassidae, cassidinae, harpetidae and harpidae". 

Prof. Dr. H. K. Erben (27. ii. 1974): "I vote for the proposals subject to the 
validation of "harpedidae" for the trilobite family. 

Whittington's selection of "harpidae" for the trilobite family was un- 
fortunate because the name "harpedidae" has been used quite commonly 
by palaeontologists (and very frequently still is). This seems to deserve con- 
sideration". 

The issue concerning the name of the family-group taxon of which Harpes 
Goldfuss, 1839 is the type-genus is therefore not yet resolved. The Ruling on 
that matter has therefore been deferred for further investigation. 



Original References 

The following are the original references for names placed on the Official 
Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Cassida Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 362 
cassidae Latreille, 1825, Fam. Regn. Anim.: 194 
cassidinae Stephens, 1831, ///. Brit. Ent., Mand. 4 : 364-365 
Cassis Scopoli, 1777, Introd. Hist, nat.: 393 
cornutum, Buccinum, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 735 
nebulosa, Cassida, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 363 

The following are the original references for the designation of type-species 
for genera concerned in the present Ruling: 

For Cassida Linnaeus, 1758: Spaeth, 1914, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 64 : [140] 
For Cassis Scopoli, 1777: Montfort, 1810, Conchyl. syst. 2 : 599 



CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (73)9 were cast as set out above, 
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper concerning the homonymy 
between the family-group names based on the generic names Cassida (Insecta) 
and Cassis (MoUusca) has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 129 

being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the 
present Opinion No. 1023. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
26 March 1974 



130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

OPINION 1024 

EPIRHEXIS COPE, 1866 (AMPHIBIA: SALIENTIA): SUPPRESSED 
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

RULING. — ( 1 ) Under the plenary powers the generic name Epirhexis Cope, 
1866, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for 
those of the Law of Homonymy. 

(2) The generic name Syrrhophus Cope, 1878 (gender; masculine), type- 
species, by monotypy, Syrrhophus marnockii Cope, 1878, is hereby placed on 
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2003. 

(3) The specific name marnockii Cope, 1878, as published in the binomen 
Syrrhophus marnockii (type-species of Syrrhophus Cope, 1878) is hereby placed 
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2534. 

(4) The generic name Epirhexis Cope, 1866, as suppressed under the plenary 
powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2049. 

(5) The specific name latodactylus Taylor, 1940, as published in the binomen 
Syrrhophus latodactylus, is not to be used in preference to the specific name 
longipes Baird, 1859, as published in the binomen Batrachyla longipes, by those 
zoologists who consider the two names apply to a single taxon at specific or 
subspecific level in the species-group. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1824) 

The present application was submitted to the office of the Commission by 
John D. Lynch in September 1967. The application was sent to the printer 
on 4 October 1967 and was published on 7 December 1967 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
24 : 313-315. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the 
present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other 
prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 
184) and to two specialist serials. The application was supported by Hobart 
M. Smith {Bull. 25 : 72) and by Thomas H. Fritts (Bull. 25 : 72). The pro- 
posals were opposed by Dr. E. Raymond Hall and a majority of the Nomen- 
clature Committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 28 August 1969 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (69)45. This voting paper con- 
sisted of two parts: Part 1, for or against the suppression under the plenary 
powers of Epirhexis Cope, 1866 as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 314-315 
and Part 2, on the suppression under the plenary powers of Batrachyla longipes 
Baird, 1 859, as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 72. At the close of the voting 
period on 28 November 1969 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Part One. 

Affirmative votes — nineteen (19), received in the following order: China, 
Holthuis, Melville, Mayr, Yokes, do Amaral, Obruchev, Eisenmann, Jaczewski, 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131 

Tortonese, Brinck, Mertens, Bonnet, Evans, Binder, Ride, Forest, Alvarado, 
Kraus. 

Negative votes — three (3): Simpson, Starobogatov, Sabrosicy. 

Abstentions — one (1): Lemche. 

Voting Papers not returned — one (1): Munroe. 

Part Two. 

Affirmative votes — fourteen (14), received in the following order: China, 
Yokes, Obruchev, Eisenmann, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Mertens, Bonnet, Evans, 
Binder, Ride, Forest, Alvarado, Kraus. 

Negative votes — eight (8): Holthuis, Melville, Mayr, do Amarai, Simpson, 
Starobogatov, Brinck, Sabrosky. 

Abstentions — one (1): Lemche. 

Voting Papers not returned — one (1): Munroe. 

The vote in Part 2, being less than a two-thirds majority in favour of the 
proposition, amounts to a refusal to use the plenary powers to suppress the 
specific name longipes Baird, 1859, as published in the binomen Batrachyla 
longipes. Article 79(a) (iii) of the International Code of Zoological Nomen- 
clature requires in the event of such a refusal, that the Opinion is to specify the 
name to be used and the action to be taken. Paragraph (5) of the above Ruling 
is drafted so as to satisfy that provision. 

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their 
voting papers: 

R. V. Melville (8.ix.l969): "I do not think the time is ripe for any action on 
Batrachyla longipes. The objections to the proposals should have been cir- 
culated to the Commission". 

G. G. Simpson (I6.ix.l969): "The complex arguments depend to a consider- 
able extent on moot zoological, non-nomenclatural factors, and the professional 
group most concerned (American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists) 
opposes the proposals". 

H. Lemche (received on 10.x. 1969): "We cannot vote on a case on which 
opposition has been presented, without knowing the reasons for it — even in a 
case of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists". 

E. Eisenmann (17.x. 1969): "I should prefer an alternative position: that 
Epirhexis should in no event have priority over Syrrhophus nor longipes over 
latodactylus, but that if Epirhexis longipes (Baird) should prove identifiable as a 
different genus and otherwise undescribed species those names should be 
applied to it." 



Original References 

The following are the original references for names placed on the Official 
Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : 
Epirhexis Cope, 1866, J. Acad. nal. Sci. Philad. (2) 6 : 96 
marnockii, Syrrhophus, Cope, 1878, Am. Nat. 12 : 253 
Syrrhophus Cope, 1878, Am. Nat. 12 : 253 



132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (69)45 were cast as set out above, 
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under 
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the 
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1024. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
26 March 1974 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133 

OPINION 1025 

SALAMANDRA TIGRINA GREEN, 1825 (AMPHIBIA): GRANT OF 

PRIORITY UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OVER 

GYRINUS MEXICANUS SHAW, 1789 

RULING. — Under the plenary powers it is hereby Ruled that the specific 
name mexicanus Shaw, 1789, (Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, 
Name Number 1869) as published in the binomen Gyrinus mexicanus is not to 
be given priority over the specific name tigrina Green, 1825 (Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology, Name Number 191 1) as published in the binomen 
Salamandra tigrina by any zoologist who considers that these two names apply 
to the same species-group. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1861) 

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Professor 
Hobart M. Smith in September 1968. Professor Smith's application was sent 
to the printer on 22 November 1968 and was published on 28 February 1969 
in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 227-228. Public Notice of the possible use of the 
plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as 
well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two specialist serials. No comment was 
received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 1 June 1970 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under 
the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (70) 24 either for or against the pro- 
posal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 228. At the close of the prescribed 
voting period on 1 September 1970 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — twelve (12), received in the following order: Holthuis, 
Melville, Lemche, Sabrosky, Vokes, Obruchev, Tortonese, Jaczewski, Mertens, 
Munroe, Forest, Ride. 

Negative votes — three (3): Eisenmann, Starobogatov, Binder. 

Voting Papers not returned — seven (7) : do Amaral, Bonnet, Brinck, Evans, 
Kraus, Mayr, Simpson. 

Professor Dr. Alvarado returned a late affirmative vote. The following 
comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes: 

Mr. R. V. Melville (12.vi.l970): "The entry on the Official List must make 
it clear that tigrinum is to be given priority over mexicanum only by those zoolo- 
gists who hold that the two names refer to subspecies of the same species." 

Dr. E. Eisenmann (22. vi. 1970): "I see no adequate reason advanced for not 
following priority. There is no evidence as to any extensive usage treating the 
two species as conspecific with the name S. tigrina. The case is the usual one of 
merger (not yet generally accepted) of two species, in which event priority 
governs which specific name is to be used. I see no confusion at all as tigrina 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

will remain a subspecific name. I believe no vote should be taken until evidence 
of usage contrary to the usual rule of priority i.e. S. tigrina mexicana is advanced. 
The fact that a name is put on the Official List does not give it priority over 
another name put even earlier on the Official List which has admitted priority 
of publication." 

Dr. W. D. L. Ride (20.viii.l970): "But I ask the Secretary to prepare, for 
examination by the Commission, the case for the validity of the statement on 
p. xii of the introduction to the Official List to the effect that names on the List 
have priority. According to the Code (Art. 78 (f )), Lists are compilations of 
names and works that are accepted in Opinions; and Opinions involve the 
application of the Code to a particular situation (Art. 78 (b)). I do not see that 
the appearance of a name in the List says anything about its priority in relation 
to other names except to those considered and rejected by the Commission in the 
appropriate Opinion". 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (70) 24 were cast as set out above, 
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under 
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken being the decision of the 
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1025. 

R. V. MELVILLE 
Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
14 May 1974 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 135 

REQUEST FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF DIDERMOCERUS BROOKES, 
1828 (MAMMALU). (Z.N.(S.) 1779) 

By Patrick J. Boylan {Leicestershire Museums, Art Galleries & Records Service) 

and Margaret Green {Scientific Assistant, International Commission on 

Zoological Nomenclature) 

In 1967, one of us expressed concern that the names Didermocerus Brookes, 
1828 and Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841 were both in current use for a genus of 
rhinoceros (Boylan, 1967, Proc. Yorks. Geol. Soc. 36 : 115-125). At the same 
time the Commission was requested to determine the matter, and towards this 
end three different alternative sets of proposals were submitted (Boylan, 1967 
Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 24 : 55-56). Subsequently, there have been both official 
and private comments on the alternatives outlined in the original application, 
and a survey of the recent usage of the two alternative names has been made. 

Didermocerus Brookes, 1828 and Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841 are objective 
synonyms because they share the same type-species by monotypy, Rhinoceros 
sumatrensis Fischer, 1814 {Zoogn. 3 : 301). 

Didermocerus Brookes, 1 828 was published in a sale catalogue {A catalogue 
of the anatomical and zoological museum of Joshua Brookes Part One, London: 
76 pp) and appears on page 75 as Lot 16 of the rhinoceros specimens, seven of 
which are labelled Didermocerus sumatrensis. The sale catalogue fulfills the 
conditions laid down in Article 8 of the Code and is therefore an available 
publication for purposes of zoological nomenclature. One other name, 
Acinonyx Brookes, 1828 — the generic name of the cheetah — has already been 
placed in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 971, 
in Opinion 384, published 20th April 1956. 

However, the name Didermocerus remained unused until Ellerman and 
Morrison-Scott, 1951 {Checklist of Palaearclic and Indian Mammals, 1758-1846) 
resurrected it. Simpson, (1945, Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. 85) noted the priority 
of Didermocerus but rejected the name because it was unused and that as it had 
appeared in a sale catalogue it had not been properly published. On the other 
hand Simpson did use Acinonyx {Tom. cit: 120); an inconsistency that was noted 
by Ellerman and Morrison-Scott. Clearly Didermocerus cannot reasonably be 
rejected on the grounds that the Brookes' Catalogue is not an available publi- 
cation when Acinonyx Brookes, 1828 from the same work is accepted. 

Since the publication of Ellerman and Morrison-Scott's Checklist, Didermo- 
cerus has come into use and since 1951 at least 19 authors have used the name 
in 28 publications referring to the extant Sumatran rhinoceros and Lord Medway 
,in a letter to the Commission wrote that Didermocerus was in general and wide- 
spread use in South and South-East Asia. 

On the other hand Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841 {Handbuch Naturgesch : 125) 
is used by nearly all palaeontologists for a number of important fossil species 
and is also used by many zoologists for the extant Sumatran rhinoceros, 
Rlu'noceros sumatrensis Fischer, 1814. D. A. Hooijer {Bull. 24 : 202) strongly 
supported the continued use of Dicerorhinus. C. P. Groves (1967, Saugetierk. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Mitt. 15 : 222) suggests that suinatrensis should be included in the genus 
Rhinoceros as it shares many characters in common with Rliinoceros sondaicus 
Desmarest 1822, but in his comment to the Commission {Bull. 24 : 279) he 
states that he has reverted to the use of Dicerorhinus. So far as we are aware the 
only use of Didermocerus for a fossil species was by one of us (Boylan, 1967 
Proc. Yorks. Geol. Soc. op. cit.) but although still convinced of the correctness 
of this usage under the Code, the form '"Dicerorhinus" has subsequently been 
preferred in order to avoid confusion in palaeontological literature. 

The three proposals between which the Commission was asked to choose 
in the original application may be summarised as follows: (A) recognise the 
validity of the Brookes' Catalogue and of Didermocerus and reject Dicerorhinus: 
(B) reject the Brookes Catalogue and adopt the next available name i.e. Diceror- 
hinus: or (C) suppress the (valid) generic name Didermocerus by the use of the 
Commission's plenary powers. 

As Sir Terence Morrison-Scott {pers. comm.) has rightly pointed out which- 
ever decision is reached it will clearly be a long time before the preferred usage 
is fully adopted and the position stabilised. Nor can a decision be reached on 
the relative merits of the two generic names without considering the significance 
of the Brookes Catalogue itself. Apart from its importance in respect of 
Acinonyx, Groves (Bull. 24 : 279) also points out that if the Commission decides 
not to validate the name Pan Oken, 1816 {Bull. 31 : 29) for the chimpanzee, the 
next available name is Theranthropus which appears on page 48 of the Brookes 
Catalogue. 

We are of the opinion that the Brookes Catalogue must be regarded as a 
valid work, and in Opinion 384 {Acinonyx) the Commission has by implication 
supported this view. Therefore of the three proposals outlined in the original 
apphcation (Boylan, 1967, Bull. loc. cit.) proposal B does not seem to us to be 
acceptable. The remaining courses of action open to the Commission are 
therefore either to insist on the use of the prior name of Didermocerus (against 
the prevaUing usage particularly in palaeontology where much of the taxonomic 
research into this particular group is concentrated) or to suppress Didermocerus 
in favour of Dicerorhinus by use of the plenary powers. A survey of the 
literature has shown that since 1951 more than 40 authors have used Dicerorhinus 
in 56 publications. 

It should be noted that if the nomen oblitum rule of the present Code had 
been in existence in 1951 Didermocerus might well have been suppressed by the 
Commission before the publication of Ellerman and Morrison-Scott's Checklist. 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore 
requested to : 

1. Use its plenary powers to suppress the name Didermocerus Brookes, 
1828 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of Law of 
Homonymy; 

2. Place the sale catalogue "A catalogue of the anatomical and zoological 
museum of Joshua Brookes Part One" published in London in 1828 on the 
Official List of Works Approved as available for Zoological Nomenclature; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 137 

3. Place the following name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoo- 
logy: Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841 (gender: masculine), type-species by monotypy 
Rhinoceros sumatrensis Fischer, 1814; 

4. Place the specific name sumatrensis Fischer, 1814 (type-species of 
Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; 

5. Place the name Didermocerus Brookes, 1828, suppressed under the 
plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Generic Names in Zoology. 



References 

The following references are to serve as an indication of the usage of the names 
Didermocerus Brookes 1828 and Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841, since the publication of 
Ellerman and Morrison-Scott's 1951 Checklist. Except where otherwise stated all 
references are to the Sumatran rhinoceros D. sumatrensis. Fossil species are indicated 
withf. 

Didermocerus Brookes, 1828 

Ali, S. & Santapau, H. 1960. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 56 : 625 
Andersen, S. 1962. Int. Zoo. Yearb. 3, 1961 (1962) : 56-57 
Anon. 1970. Malay Nat. J. 24 : 1-2 

BoYLAN, P. J. 1967. Proc. Yorl<s. Geol. Soc. 36 : 115-125 (t D. hemitoechus) 
Cave, A. J. E. 1964. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 142 : 73-83 
Cave, A. J. E. & Aumonier, F. 1962. JI. R. micr. Soc. 81 ; 73-77 

1963. JI. R. micr. Soc. 82 : 29-37 

1966. JI. R. micr. Soc. 86 : 51-57 

Groves, C. P. 1965. Saugetierlt. Mitt. 13 : 128-131 

HiSLOP, J. A. 1961. Malay Nat. J. 21st Anniv. Spec. Issue: 95-99 

1966. Oryx 8 : 353-359 

Harrison, J. 1964. An introduction to the mammals of Sabah. The Sabah Society, 
Hesselton, Sabah, Malaysia 

1966. An introduction to the mammals of Singapore and Malaya. Singapore 

Branch, Malayan Nature Society, Singapore 

Harrisson, T. 1955. Oryx 3 : \34-\i7 

1957. Sarawak Mus. J. 7, 1956 : 263-274 

Krumbiegel, I. 1962. Saugetierk. Mitt. 10 : 1-2 

1965. Saugetierk. Mitt. 13 : 97-100 

Lang, E. M. 1959. Saugetierk. Mitt. 7 : 177 
LuKASZEWicz, K. 1962. Przegl. zool. 6 : 303-306 

Medway, Lord. 1965. Mammals of Borneo, Field keys and an annotated checklist. 
Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Singapore: i-xiv, 1-193 

1966a. Sarawak Mus. J. 12 (25-26) : 77-82 

1966b. Sarawak Mus. J. 14 : 185-216 

Metcalfe, G. T. C. 1961. Ma/a>' A'ar. X 21st Anniv. Spec. Issue: 183-191 
Prater, S. H. 1965. The book of Indian Animals (2nd Edition), Bombay 
Reynolds, R. J. 1961. Int. Zoo. Yearb. 2, 1960 (1961) : 42^3 
Stevens, W. E. 1968. Malay Nat. J. 22 : 10-17 
Strickland, D. L. 1967. Malay Nat. J. 20 : 1-17 
Talbot, L. M. 1960. Oryx 5 : 143-293 

Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841 
Fossil species are marked with (t) 

Adam, K. D. 1958. Razpr. Akad. Ljubljana (4) 4 : 435-440. (tZ>. kirchbergensis.) 
Arambourg, C. 1959. Pub. Carte geol. Alger. Pal. Mem. 4 : \-\()\.(;\D.primaevus 
sp. nov, p. 56) 



138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

BONIFAY, M. F. 1961. Ann. Paleonl. 47 -.75-89(^0. merkii) 

Cadeo, G. 1958. Naliiia, Milano 49 : 151-157 (ti5. merkii) 

Chaline, J. 1963. Bull, scienl. Bourgogne 31 : 123-133 {^D. merkii) 

Chow, B. 1963. Vertebr. patasiat. 7 : 325-330 (tZ). choukoiitienensis, ^D. 

yimclwchenensis) 
Clutton-Brock, J. 1970. J. Zool. Land. 162 : 19-29 (t Dicerorhinus) 
CzYZEWSKA, T. 1962. Ada palaeont. polon. 7 -.223-234(^0. merkii) 

1958. Acta, palaeonl. pol. 3(1) 49-58 (-f Dicerorlunus) 

Degerbol, M. 1952. Biol. Skr. 6 (8) : 1-26 (fD. kirchbergensis) 

Dietrich, W. O. 1953. Z. Gesamt. Geol. Min. Geophys. Berlin 2 : 417-430 (fO. 

etruscus) 
Groves, C. P. 1967. Saugeiierk. Mitt. 15 : 221-237 
GUERIN, C, Ballesio, R. & Meon-Vilain, H. 1969. Docums Lab. Geol. Fac. Sci. 

Lyon No. 31 : 55-145 (t-D. megarlnniis) 
Hass, G. 1966. On the vertebrate fauna of the Lower Pleistocene site. "Ubeidiya". 

Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem : 1-68 (fD. & fO. 

etruscus) 
HOOUER, D. A. 1960. Bull. Res. Counc. Israel 99 : 104-108 (tZ). merkii) 

1961. Zool. Verhandl. Leiden No. 49 : 1-68 (tZ). merkii) 

1966. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. Geol. 13 : 1 17-190 (fZ). leakeyi sp. nov.) 

Kahlke, H. D. 1 960. The early middle Pleistocene mammalian fauna of Sussenborn 

In: MusiL, R. Mammalia pleistocaenica Anthropos 1 Suppl. : 77-99 (tZ>. 
etruscus) 

1960. Palaont. Z. 34-9 (fZ). etruscus) 

1965. Palaont. Abh. Berlin (Abt. A) 2 -.451-520 (fD. etruscus) 

1969. Palaont. Abli. Berlin (Abt. A) 3 : 547-610 (fZ?. etruscus) 

KOROTKEVICH, E. L. 1961. Zbirn. Prats zool. Mus. 30 : 114-121 (Z)) 

KuRTEN, B. 1968. Pleistocene Mammals of Europe, London viii 317 pp (fZ). Spp.) 
Lehmann, U. 1957. Mitt. geol. (St.) Inst. Hamb. 26 : 60-99 (fD. etruscus) 
Loose, H. 1960. Proc. Ned. Akad. Wet., Anist. 63B : 380-382 (tZ). kirchbergensis) 

1961. Proc. Ned. Akad. Wet. Amst. 648 : 41^6 (fZ). hemitoechus) 

Malez, M. 1960. /lH//)ro;)o.s 1 Suppl. 1 : 115-125 (tZ). ff(7«c(«) 

i961a. Palaeont. Jugoslav. No. 4 : 1^3 (tZ). etruscus) 

1961b. Geol. Vjesn. 14 : 63-88 (tZ). kirchbergensis) 

McNeely, J. A. & Cronin, E. W. 1962. Oryx 11 : 357-360 

McWiLLlAMS, B. 1970. Bull. Soc. Beige Geol. Paleont. Hydrol. 79 : 169-174 (tZ>. 

etruscus) 
Melentis, J. K. 1966. Annls. geol. Pays Hell. 16 : 363-402 (jZ). etruscus) 
MOTTL, M. 1959. Carinthia II 68 : 46-48 (D. sp) 

1967. Mitt. Mus. Bergb. Geol. Tech., Graz 15 : 77-87 (fZ?.) 

NiKOLOV, I. 1965. Trav. Geol. Bulgarie B. Paleont. 7 :225-3\7 
Pavlovic, M. B. 1963. Geolosk. An. balk. Poluost. 30 : 63-76 (fZ). aff. sansaniensis) 
Petter, G. & Heintz E. 1970. Bull. Mus. nat. Hist. nat. Paris 41 1969 : 1292-1298 
Psarianos, p. 1959. Prakt. Akad. Athens 33 : 330-312 (tZ). etruscus) 

(D.) 
Radulescu, C. & KovACS, A. 1966. Lucr. Inst. Speol. Emil. Racovita 5 : 233-250 

(D.) 
RoMER, A. S. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology (3rd Edition) Chicago, viii + 468 pp. 

(D.) 
Rakovech, I. 1965. Razpr. slov. Akad. Znan. Umet (4) Hist. nat. 8 : 225-317 (D.) 
Shikama, T., Hasegawa, Y. & Okafuji, G. 1967. Bidl. nat. Sci. Mus. Tokyo 10 : 

455-462 (D.) 
SUTCLIFFE, A. J. 1960. Trans. Torquay nat. hist. Soc. 13 : 1-26 

1963. Notes on the mammal remains. In: Shotton, F. W., Sutcliffe, A. J. 

& West R. G. The fauna and flora from the Brick Pit at Lexden, Essex. 
Essex Nat. 31 : 15-22 (tZ). hemitoechus) 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139 

SUTCLIFFE, A. J. 1964. The mammalian fauna pp. 85-111. In Ovey, C. D., 

The Swanscombe Skull, London xii + 216pp. (fZ). Kirchbergensis & tO. 

hemitoechiis) 
& Zeuner, F. E. 1962. Proc. Devon archaeol. expl. Sac. 5 : 127-145. (D. 

hemitoechiis) 
THENIU.S, E. 1955. Mitt. geol. Ccs. Wien. 45 -.MS-XAd (,-\D. Iiemiloechus). 1956- 

1959. In: Felgenhaur, F. Willendorf in der Wachau. Monographic der 

Palaolith-Fundstellen I-VII Mitt, prdliist. Komm. Wien 8-9, 133-170 (t£>. 

kircltbergensis) 
Tweedie, M. 1968. Animals II : 366-369 (tO. kirchbergensis, fO. hemitoeclms) 
Ullrich, W. 1955. Zool. Gart. Lpz. 22 : 29-33 
Vangengeim, E. a., Beliajeva, E. I. et al. 1966. Trud. geol. Inst. Leningr. 152 : 

1-163 
VlALLi, V. 1956. Mem. Sac. Hal. Sci. Nat. 12 : 1-70 (fZ). etrusciis) 
ViRET. 1958. Perissodactyla pp. 368-498. //; Piveteau, J. Traite de Paleontologie 

6 (2), Paris, 962 pp. (Siib-Fam.) Dicerorhininae, Genus Dicerorliinus). 
Walker, A, 1969. Uganda J. 32 : \49-l56 
Yin, U. T. 1954. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 52 : 1(A-1U 



140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

CICADA CINGULATA (FABRICIUS) VAR. OBSCURA HUDSON, 1891 

(INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA, SUBORDER HOMOPTERA): 
PROPOSED SUPPRESSION AS A NO MEN OBLITUM. Z.N.(S.) 1888 

By C. A. Fleming and J. S. Dugdale (New Zealand Department of 
Scientific and Industrial Research, Lower Hutt and Auckland, New Zealand) 

G. V. Hudson (1891), after describing "Cicada cingulata Fabr." (i.e. Tetti- 
gonia cingulata Fabricius, currently listed in the genus Amphipsalta Fleming by 
Dugdale & Fleming, 1969), introduced a new taxon "a. var. obscura" for a 
"distinct variety", briefly defined ("remarkable for its smaller size, dull colour, 
and very loud chattering song"), with a locality. Although he viTote "I do 
not think it is anything more than a variety", Hudson's name, in our judgement, 
must be classed as subspecific under Articles 45d (i) and 45e (i). It was given 
full specific rank under the combination Melampsalta obscura Hudson, by 
Hutton (1904) in his "Index Faunae Novae Zealandiae". 

In 1909, G. W. Kirkaldy introduced Cicadetta strepitans nom. nov. for 
Cicada cingulata var. obscura Hudson, recognising it as a good species and 
renaming it, he stated, because he had "not been able to identify it with any of 
Walker's species". Kirkaldy's name has been consistently used for more than 
60 years since its introduction in lists and systematic reviews (see Metcalf 1963) 
in combination with the generic names Melampsalta Amyot, Cicadetta Amyot 
and latterly with Amphipsalta Fleming. The existence of Hudson's prior name 
has been known and cited in synonymies; its neglect as the valid name for the 
taxon to which it was originally applied has apparently been due to the weight 
of Kirkaldy's authority and a belief that a name proposed for a variety did not 
qualify for priority as a species name. Both Myers (1921) in his revision, and 
Hudson himself (1950) accepted Kirkaldy's later name for Cicada cingulata var. 
obscura. We have found no prior use of the species-group name obscura in 
combination with the generic names Cicada, Melampsalta, or Cicadetta. 
Recently (Fleming & Ordish 1966) a lectotype was chosen for Cicada cingulata 
var. obscura Hudson, which becomes automatically the lectotype for Cicadetta 
strepitans Kirkaldy. 

We consider that the application of the Law of Priority, whereby the insect 
now known as Amphipsalta strepitans (Kirkaldy) would be called Amphipsalta 
obscura (Hudson), would disturb stability and cause confusion. Although this 
species is not important to medicine or horticulture or in any other field of 
applied science, its trivial name, strepitans, has been used for over 60 years by 
many New Zealand entomologists, both amateur and professional, for whom 
cicadas are a favourite group. We therefore refer the case to the Commission 
for a decision under the Plenary Powers. 

To estabhsh a/;/-;>na/ac/e case under Article 79(b) that stability is threatened 
we report that we have found no record of the senior name being used since 
1904 except in synonymies and that the junior name has been applied to the 
taxon concerned, as its presumably valid name, by the following 7 authors in the 
publications cited: Kirkaldy (1909), Myers (1921, 1929a, 1929b), Myers and 

Bull. zool. Nomenci, Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141 

Myers (1924), Hudson (1950), Fleming & Ordish (1966), Fleming (1967), 
Dugdale & Fleming (1969), and Dugdale (1972). Moreover, in 1969, we 
rejected the name Cicada cingulata var. obscura Hudson on the grounds that it 
was an unused senior synonym of a name in general use to which (at that time) 
Article 23(b) of the code was relevant, and we recorded that we had applied 
to the Commission to place Hudson's name on the Official Index of Rejected 
Specific Names in Zoology. (Owing to the proposed amendment of Article 23, 
the application was not processed.) 

Accordingly the Commission is requested: 

(1) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the specific name obscura Hudson, 
1891, as published in the combination Cicada cingulata Fabr. a. var. obscura 
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homo- 
nymy. 

(2) to place the specific name obscura, published as above, on the Official 
Index of Rejected Specific Names in Zoology; 

(3) to place the specific name strepitans Kirkaldy, 1909, as published under 
the binomen Cicadetta strepitans Kirkaldy, on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology. 

LrrERATURE CFTED 

Dugdale, J. S. 1972. Genera of New Zealand Cicadidae. N.Z. Jl. Sci. 14 (4) : 

856-882 
Dugdale, J. S. & Fleming, C. A. 1969. Two New Zealand cicadas collected on 

Cook's Endeavour Voyage, with description of a new genus. N.Z. Jl. Sci. 12 

(4) : 929-957 
Fleming, C. A. 1967. Notes on the distribution of New Zealand Cicadas. N.Z. 

Em. 3 (5) : 16-17 
Fleming, C. A. & Ordish, R. G. 1966. Type specimens of G. V. Hudson's taxa of 

New Zealand Cicadas (Genus Melampsalta, Hemiptera Homoptera). Rec. 

Dam. Miis. Wellington 5 (20) : 195-200 
Hudson, G. V. 1891. On the New Zealand Cicadae. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 23 : 49-55 

1950. Fragments of New Zealand Entomology Ferguson & Osborn, Wellington, 

188 pp. 

HuTTON, F. W. 1904. Index Faunae Novae Zealandiae Dulau & Co., London 
Kirkaldy, G. W. 1909. A list of the Hemiptera (Excluding Sternorrhyncha) of 

the Maorian Subregion, with notes on a few of the species. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 

41 : 22-29 
Metcalf, Z. p. 1963. General catalogue of the Homoptera. Fasc. 8 Cicadoidea, 

Part 2 Tibicinidae. Washington, U.S. Dept. Agric, Raleigh N.C., N. Carolina 

Slate College, Raleigh, N.C. Paper No. 1564 
Myers, I. & Myers, J. G. 1924. The sound-organs and songs of New Zealand 

Cicadidae (Homoptera). Rep. \6th Meeting Aust. Assoc. Advance Sci. 

(Wellington) : 420-432 
Myers, J. G. 1921. A revision of the New Zealand Cicadidae (Homoptera) with 

descriptions of new species. Trans. Proc. N.Z. Inst. 53 : 283-350 

1929a. The taxonomy, phylogeny and distribution of New Zealand Cicadas 

(Homoptera). Trans. R. ent. Soc. Land. 11 : 29-60 

1929b. Insect Singers. A natural history of the Cicadas. G. Routledge & Sons 

Ltd., London 



142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

HYMENOSOMA Z./4£K£ TARGIONI TOZZETTI, 1877 (CRUSTACEA, 

BRACHYURA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY 

POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2014 

By J. S. Lucas {James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, 

AUQ Australia) 

I am engaged in a revision of the crab family Hymenosomatidae, and have 
discovered a senior synonym which would seem to be an unused senior synonym. 

Targioni Tozzetti (1877) described a new species, Hymenosoma laeve, from 
Victoria, Australia. I have reviewed the literature extensively, and to my 
knowledge, there have only been two references to this name, since the original 
description. Kemp (1917) mentioned it as a probable species of Halicarcinus 
White, 1846 and Tesch (1918) included it in his hymenosomatid monograph as 
a "species incertae sedis". Therefore the specific name laeve has not been used 
since 1918. 

Haswell (1882 a & b) described the same taxon as Hymenosoma australe 
and this junior synonym has been used in the primary zoological literature in all 
other references to this species, except Kemp (1917). I know of fifteen refer- 
ences by more than five authors from 1906 to date in which Haswell's name is 
used. These are listed below in chronological order. 

I have examined the hymenosomatid material in all the Australian Museums 
and in no case are specimens identified as laeve. Further, the Curator of the 
Museo Zoologico de "La Specola", Firenze, Italy, informs me that the type- 
specimen of Hymenosoma laeve is not extant, having been destroyed in World 
Warn. 

Therefore, I duly request the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature to : 

(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name laeve Targioni 

Tozzetti, 1877, as published in the binomen Hymenosoma laeve, 
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of 
Homonymy; 

(2) place the specific name suppressed in (1) above, on the Official Index of 

Rejected and InvaUd Specific Names in Zoology. 

References 

'References marked with an asterisk are those which mention australe. 

Targioni Tozzetti, A. 1877. Crostacei Brachiuri e Anomouri. In: "Zoologia del 

Viaggio intorno al Globo della R. pirocorvetta Magenta. Firenze. 257 pp., 

13 pis. 
Haswell, W. A. 1882a. On some new Australian Brachyura. Proc. Linn. Soc. 

N.S.W. 6 : 540-551, 750-763 
1882b. Catalogue of the Australian stalk- and sessile-eyed Crustacea. Aust- 
ralian Museum, Sydney. 326 pp. 
*FuLTON, S. W. and Grant, F. E. 1906. Census of Victorian decapod Crustacea. 

Part 1 (Brachyura). Proc. R. Soc. Vict, (ser 2) 19 : 16-20 
*Tesch,J. J. 1918. The Decapoda Brachyura oftheSiboga Expedition. I. Hymeno- 

somidae, Retroplumidae, Ocypodidae, Grapsidae and Gecarcinidae. Siboga 

Exped. 39c (82) : 1-148 

Bull. zool. Nomenci., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 143 

•Montgomery, S. K. 1921. Some Hymenosomidae from the Swan River. J. R. 

Soc. W. Aust. 6 : 93-96 
* 1931. Report on the Crustacea Brachyura of the Percy Sladen Expedition to 

the Abrolhos Islands under the leadership of Prof. W. J. Dakin in 1913, along 

with other crabs from Western Australia. /. Linn. Soc. (Zool.) 37 : 405-465 
*Hale, H. M. 1927. The Crustaceans of South Australia. Part I. Govt Printer, 

Adelaide. 201 pp. 
♦Thompson, J. M. 1946. The fauna of the algal zone of the Swan River estuary. 

A preliminary survey of Freshwater Bay with notes on the chief species. J. R. 

Soc. W. Aust. 30 ; 55-73 
*Dakin, W. J., Bennett, I. and Pope, E. 1952. Australian Seashores. Angus & 

Robertson, Sydney, xxii, 372 pp. 
*Serventy, D. L. 1955. The fauna of the Swan River estuary: 70-77. \n: Swan 

River Reference Committee, Report by subcommittee on pollution of Swan River. 

Govt Printer, Perth 
*Snelling, B. 1959. The distribution of intertidal crabs in the Brisbane River. 

Aust. J. inar. Freshwat. Res. 10 : 67-83 
•Serene, R. 1968. The Brachyura of the Indo-West Pacific Region: 33-112 In: 

Serene, R. (Ed.) Prodromus for a check list of the {non-planctonic) marine 

fauna of South East Asia. Singapore National Academy of Science, Special 

Publication No. 1, 120 pp. 
•Lucas J. S. 1970. Breeding experiments to distinguish two sibling species of 

Halicarcinus (Crustacea, Brachyura). J. Zool. 160 : 267-278 
* 1971. The larval species of some Australian species of //a//facc/;»M (Crustacea, 

Brachyura, Hymenosomatidae). I. Morphology. Bull. Mar. Sci. 21 : 471-490 

* 1972. [As above.] II. Physiology. Bull. Mar. Sci. 22 : 834-840 

•Lucas, J. S. and Hodgkin, E. P. 1970. Growth and reproduction of Halicarcinus 

australis (Haswell) (Crustacea, Brachyura) in the Swan estuary, Western 

Australia. I. Crab instars. Aust. J. mar. Freshwat. Res. 21 : 149-162 
* 1970. [As above.] II. Larval stages. Aust. J. mar. Freshwat. Res. 21 ; 163- 

173 



144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

POLYGRAM MA CHEVROLAT, 1837: PROPOSED SUPPRESSION 

UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS SO AS TO CONSERVE 
LEPTINOTARSA STAL, 1854 (COLEOPTERA, CHRYSOMELIDAE). 

Z.N.(S.) 2048 

By Richard E. White {Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research 

Service, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560) 

and Richard L. Jacques, Jr. (Department of Biological Sciences, Fairleigh 

Dickenson University, Rutherford, New Jersey, U.S.A.) 

The intent of this paper is to discuss the history of the genus-group names 
Leptinotarsa Stal and Polygramma Chevrolat and, in the interest of maintaining 
long standing usage, to request the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature to (1) place Leptinotarsa Stal on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology and (2) place Polygramma Chevrolat on the Official Index 
of Rejected Names. 

2. The name Leptinotarsa was first published by Chevrolat (1837, in 
DeJean, Cat. Col. 5 : 397). The DeJean catalog was simply a list of names with 
no descriptions. None of the six names listed beneath Leptinotarsa was 
validated therein or earlier, so they were nomina nuda, as was Leptinotarsa. 
Leptinotarsa was again published by Chevrolat (1843, in d'Orbigny, Diet. 
Univ. d'Hist. Nat., 3 : 656) but was neither described nor had previously 
described species listed beneath it. The first valid publication of Leptinotarsa 
was by Stal (1858, Ofver. Kong. Vetens. Fork. 15 (9-10) : 475) when he 
described the genus and nine included species; none was designated as type- 
species. Motschulsky (1860, in Schrenck, Reisen Forsch. Amur-Lande, 2(2) : 
182) designated the type-species as ''Lept. Heydenii Chev.", one of the species 
included by Stal. 

3. Polygramma was proposed by Chevrolat (1837, p. 397) with citation 
of 4 species, all nomina nuda. However, listed beneath the nomen nudum 
decemlineata DeJean, as a synonym, was the available name juncta Germar 
(1824, Insect. Spec. Nov., p. 509); this serves to validate Polygramma with 
juncta as the type-species by monotypy. 

4. Leptinotarsa is a New World genus of over 40 species. One species, 
the Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say)), is of great economic 
importance, being the subject of many hundreds of publications in the literature 
of economic entomology in North America and in Europe, where it has been 
introduced. In the Index to the Literature of American Economic Entomology 
for the period of 1905 to 1914 alone there are listed 101 papers referring to 
this species. A list of references for Leptinotarsa, meeting the requirements of 
Article 79(b) is given at the end of the paper. Change of the firmly entrenched 
and familiar name Leptinotarsa to Polygramma cannot be justified. 

5. Therefore, to avoid the confusion resulting from upsetting a long- 
accepted name, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
is hereby requested to take the following actions: 

Bull, zool Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 145 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Potygramma 

Chevrolat, 1837, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for 
those of the Law of Homonymy; 

(2) to place Polygramma, type-species by monotypy, P. juncta (Germar), 

on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology; 

(3) to place the generic name Leptinotarsa Stal, 1858, (gender: feminine) 

on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the type-species 
L. heydenii Stal, as designated by Motschulsky, 1860; 

(4) to place Leptinotarsa heydenii Stal, 1858, on the Official List of Specific 

Names in Zoology. 

References 

Manolache, C, Boguleanu, G., Sandru, I. and Beratlief, C. 1961. Lucr. 

Ses. sliinl. Inst, agron. Nicolae Bdlescu (Set. B) No. 5 : 343 
UsHATiNSKAiA, R. S. 1961. Dol<l. Akod. Naul< SSSR 140(5) : 1 189 
DE Wilde, J., Slooff, R. and Bongers, W. 1960. Meded. LandbHoogescli Opzoek- 

Stns Gent 250^) : 1340 
DE Wilde, J., Duintjer, C. S. and Mook, L. 1959. J. Ins. Pliysiol. 3(2) : 75 
Wegorek, W. 1959. Pr. naiik Inst. Oclir. Rosl. 1(2) : 1 
PiEKARCZYK, K. 1959. Pr. naiik Inst. Ochr. Rosl. 1(1) : 47 
Wegorek, W. 1957. Roczn. Naiik rain. 74(A) pt 2 : 135 
MacNay, C. G. 1958. Canad. Insect Pest Rev. 36(5) : 240 
DE Wilde, J. 1958. Entoniologia exp. appl. 1(1) : 14 
Grison, p. 1958. Entoniologia exp. appl. 1(2) : 73 

Plus many hundreds of papers (largely economic) over the last hundred or so 
years. More references may be found in the Zoological Record for the years 
1967 onwards. 

Polygramma usage 

Up until 1956 (see below), and for about 100 years, this name had been cited 
in literature exclusively as a synonym of Leptinotarsa. The mention in the 1956 
citation, as far as I know, is the first time Polygramma was recognised as a senior 
synonym of Leptinotarsa. 

In 1958 (below) it was again cited as a valid name. 

MONROS, F. & Bechyne, J. 1956. Ent. Arb. Miis. Georg Frey 7(3) : 1128 
Bechyne, J. 1958. Ent. Arb. Mus. Georg Frey 9(2) : 53\ 



146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

DACTYLOPIUS COSTA, 18351 AND PSEUDOCOCCUS WESTWOOD, 
1840 (INSECTA HOMOPTERA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE- 
SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS WITH PROPOSED 
SUPPRESSION OF DIAPROSTECI COSTA, 1828. Z.N,(S.) 2056 

By Douglass R. Miller {Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research 
Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Md. 20705, U.S.A.) 

The purpose of this application is to request the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to ensure the continued 
usage of the generic names Dactylopius Costa, 1835ai and Pseudococcus West- 
wood, 1840 as currently understood. The economically important families 
Dactylopiidae Signoret, 1875 (coctiineal insects) and Pseudococcidae Cockerell, 
1905 (mealybugs), respectively, are based on these generic names. If the Code 
is strictly applied, these names will be in jeopardy. 

2. Numerous accounts in the literature indicate the need of a Ruling by 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in regard to these 
generic names (e.g., Ferris, 1950, p. 170, 1955, p. 85; Morrison and Morrison, 
1966, pp. 54-55, 165; McKenzie, 1967, p. 288; Williams, 1969, p. 335), but untU 
now, no application to the Commission has been made. 

3. As can be seen from the following historical accounts, the identities of 
Dactylopius and Pseudococcus are closely intertwined. Because I believe that 
it would be virtually impossible to formulate an application on one genus 
without affecting the other, I have prepared a single document covering both 
genera. To understand the problems involved in retaining Dactylopius and 
Pseudococcus as currently recognized, it is necessary to outline the pertinent 
historical developments. 

History of Dactylopius 

4. Costa (1828, p. 453) proposed Diaprosteci as a subdivision of Coccus 
Linnaeus, 1758, and included only Coccus adonidum Linnaeus (long-tailed 
mealybug) (misidentification, actually adonidum of authors, not Linnaeus, see 
paragraph 21). Therefore, C adonidum is the type-species of Diaprosteci by 
monotypy. This generic name has not been used as a valid name for over 
60 years (Morrison and Morrison 1966, p. 57) primarily because many authors 
(Cockerell 1902b, p. 453; DeLotto 1964, p. 378; Fernald 1903a, p. 22; Ferris 
1957a, p. 44) believed that it was given in the Italian vernacular. However, 
Morrison and Morrison (1966, p. 57) stated, "We are not able to confirm that 
this is a 'vernacular name' as defined in the 1961 Zoological Code. Instead, 
Diaprosteci appears to us to be derived from the Greek language, although 
poorly formed". Two other subdivisions of Coccus (Calymmata and Diaspis) 
were described in the same publication and have been widely accepted by scale 
taxonomists (e.g., Fernald 1903b, pp. 167, 227; Ferris 1937, SI-31, 1957a, 
p. 44; Kirkaldy 1904, p. 228; Lindinger 1941, p. 67; Morrison and Morrison 

'This publication was undated. The date currently accepted by coccidologlsts is 1835 
(Fernald 1903a, p. 22; Morrison and Renk 1957, p. 56; Morrison and Morrison 1966, p. 26), 
but see paragraph 5. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 147 

1966, pp. 27, 29), although one of these is generally regarded as a junior synonym. 
It appears to me, therefore, that Diaprosteci must also be regarded as an avail- 
able generic name. 

5. In Fauna del regno di Napoli, famiglia de' coccinigliferi o de' gallinsetti, 
Napoli, Costa (pp. 2, 15) described Dactylopius as a replacement name for 
Diaprosteci because he was dissatisfied with the latter. The date of this publi- 
cation is not known. Costa quotes several references, the latest of which are 
both 1828: Memoria sugl" insette che vivono suH' olivo, Atti del R. 1st. d'lncor- 
ragiamento, 4" vol. and // Pontano, Giorn. Sclent, e Lett, di Napoli No. VIII. 
Sherborn (1937, J. Sac. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1(2) : 35-47) investigated the dates of 
publication of the Fauna del Regno di Napoli and says: "Coccinigliferi . . . 
pp. 1-8, 9-16, 17-23, probably before Fulgora, 1840". He also says: "I may 
mention that the recovery of these dates involved the pulling to pieces of three 
copies of Costa, a proceeding 1 thinlc scarcely likely to be repeated. It will 
be well to refer to my original note". [1910, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 5 : 132]. In 
view of the fact that 1835 is the date which has come into use by most coccoid 
workers, I will, with the other requests ask that the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature rules that the date of publication of Costa's 
Fauna del Regno di Napoli, Famiglia de' coccinigliferi a de' gallinsetti. Emitteri, 
Napoli be accepted as 1835. By the provisions of Article 67(i) regarding the 
type-species of replacement nominal genera, the type of Dactylopius must be 
C. adonidum. In addition to "Dactylopius adonidum" (long-tailed mealybug), 
which was only briefly mentioned, Costa also included D. polonicus (Linnaeus) 
and D. coccus (cochineal insect) which he described as new and which he used 
as a senior synonym of Coccus cacti Linnaeus (misidentification, cacti of 
authors, not Linnaeus, see paragraph 8). If there is any question about C. 
adonidum as the type-species of Dactylopius, it should be noted that the first 
subsequent type-designation was also C. adonidum by Targioni-Tozzetti, 1866, 
p. 129. 

6. Targioni-Tozzetti (1867, p. 75) described as new Dactylopius longispinus 
for the long-tailed mealybug. 

7. Signoret (1875, pp. 306, 346) did not follow Costa's 1835 concept of 
Dactylopius. Instead, he placed the cochineal insect (C cacti "des auteurs") 
in Coccus and the long-tailed mealybug (D. adonidum) and related species in 
Dactylopius. This concept gained general usage for the next 25 years. 

8. Cockerell (1899a, p. 261) pointed out that C. cacti Linnaeus is not the 
cochineal insect at all but is a member of the family Margarodidae. Most 
earlier references to C. cacti Linnaeus were misidentifications. According to 
Cockerell, the next available name for the cochineal insect is D. coccus Costa. 
(See De Lotto (1974, Bull. zool. NomencI 31 : 154) for discussion of D. coccus). 

9. Cockerell (1902b, p. 454) significantly changed the concept of Dactylo- 
pius by restricting the genus to the cochineal insects and using D. coccus as the 
type-species. Although Cockerell's action was incorrect, it has been followed 
with few exceptions (e.g., Kirkaldy 1904b, p. 255; MacGillivray 1921, p. 103) 
and is overwhelmingly the current usage. 

10. De Lotto (1971, p. 258) states that Costa (1835b, p. 6) established Dacty- 
lopius coccus as the type-spwcies of Dactylopius by "subsequent monotypy". 



148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

However, type designation by "subsequent monotypy'"cioes not apply in this case 
because three species were included in the original description of Dactylopius 
(see Article 69(a) (ii) (2). It appears that De Lotto considered D. coccus to 
be the type of the genus by subsequent restriction, but this is not a valid mecha- 
nism for type designation. 

11. According to the Rules, Dactylopius Costa, with its type-species 
Coccus adonidum Linnaeus (misidentification, = Dactylopius longispinus 
Targioni-Tozzetti), is a junior objective synonym of Diaprosteci Costa. Also, 
even if Diaprosteci is taken as a vernacular name (and I don't think it should be), 
Dactylopius is the senior generic name for the mealybug D. longispinus and 
related species in the family Pseudococcidae. Both of these interpretations are 
undesirable, because current usage of Dactylopius (type-species D. coccus) 
for the cochineal insects (family Dactylopiidae) is now well established. 

12. To comply with the requirement adopted in Monaco, 1972 for the 
suppression of an unused senior synonym {Diaprosteci) to be replaced by a 
commonly used junior synonym (Dactylopius), the following citations in 
support of current usage are given: Balachowsky, 1948, p. 256; Fernald, 1903b, 
p. 80; Ferris, 1919, p. 19, 1955, p. 85, 1957b, p. 85; Green, 1922, p. 357; Hoy, 
1963, p. 57; Lindinger, 1943, p. 265; Mamet, 1950, p. 17, 1951, p. 222; Mann, 
1969, p. 138; Williams, 1969, p. 324. To my knowledge, the genus name 
Diaprosteci has not been used as a valid senior synonym for more than 50 
years. 

History of Pseudococcus 

13. In the text of his Modern Classification of Insects (June, 1840, pp. 447, 
488) Westwood described the genus Pseudococcus in which he included only 
C. cacti. However, in the appendix (p. 118, also published June 1840, see 
Blackwelder, 1949, p. 45) he included both cacti and adonidum. Therefore, 
Westwood's genus was not monotypic; he did not designate a type-species. 
(See paragraph 17 below for subsequent designation.) 

14. Targioni-Tozzetti (1866, p. 121) treated Pseudococcus as a junior 
synonym of Dactylopius but did not designate a type-species for Pseudococcus. 

15. Targioni-Tozzetti (1867, p. 75) described Dactylopius longispinus as 
new and treated it as a senior synonym of C. adonidum Linnaeus. 

16. Signoret (1875, p. 328) drastically altered the concept oi Pseudococcus 
to include only the mealybug species now placed in the genus Phenacoccus 
Cockerell. He made no mention of a type-species. The long-tailed mealybug 
adonidum was placed in Dactylopius. This concept was generally adhered to for 
the next 19 years. 

17. Cockerell (1893, p. 318) described Phenacoccus for the species that 
Signoret included in Pseudococcus, but he did not designate a type-species. For 
Pseudococcus Cockerell wrote, "I find what appears to be its [Pseudococcus] 
earliest publication in the 'Modern Classification of Insects', vol. i (1839), 
[wrong volume and date] p. 118. Here Westwood writes: 'Pseudococcus 
Westw. (C. adonidum, cacti, etc.), [actually C. adonidum. Cacti, & c] having the 
female[s] not fixed, and clothed with a woolly secretion' [Cockerell continues] 
. . . The definition would fit several genera as now understood, but in the absence 
of any indication of a type species we should take adonidum as the type, as it is 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 149 

first mentioned. However, in 'Mod. Class. Ins.' vol. ii (1840), p. 448 [actually 
447], all doubt on this score is removed, since we read that C. ilicis is to be 
considered the type of Coccus, and of C. cacti, the author [Westwood] states: 
'this insect . . . belongs to a genus . . . which I propose to name Pseudococcus' . 
[Cockerell continues] No mention is here made of adonicliim, and I think we 
may consider that cadi was certainly intended as the type of the genus". 

1 8. This quotation was the first attempt at type-species fixation for Pseudo- 
coccus, and it appears that Cockerell may have designated two type-species in the 
same publication. However, based on the following phrases from the above 
quotation, I conclude that C. cacti was intended by Cockerell to be the type- 
species. "... in the absence of any indication [emphasis mine] of a type species 
we should take adonidum as the type . . ." However, in the next paragraph 
Cockerell alluded to an indication as follows: "However ... all doubt on this 
score is removed, since we read [in Westwood 1 840] that . . . C. cacti belongs to a 
genus . . . which I [Westwood] propose to name Pseudococcus" . Cockerell 
continued "... I think we may consider that cacti was certainly intended 
[emphasis mine] as the type of the genus". 

19. Further evidence that Cockerell intended C. cacti (cochineal insect) 
to be the type-species is provided by the fact that he used Pseudococcus for the 
cochineal insect in later papers (e.g., Cockerell 1899b, p. 277, 1900, p. 992). 

20. Cockerell (1902a, p. 342, 1902b, p. 456) significantly altered his ideas in 
regard to Pseudococcus and suggested that the genus should encompass C. 
adonidum and related mealybug species; he placed the cochineal insects in 
Dactylopius. This concept of using Pseudococcus and Pseudococcidae for the 
mealybugs has been generally followed from 1902 to the present with few ex- 
ceptions (e.g., Kirkaldy, 1904a, p. 226; Laing, 1944, p. 93) and is overwhelmingly 
the current usage. 

21. De Lotto (1965, p. 226) pointed out that Coccus adonidum Linnaeus, 
which for many years had been considered the type-species of Pseudococcus 
(e.g., Balachowsky, 1953, p. 1047; De Lotto, 1964, p. 377; Ferris, 1950, p. 117) 
and the valid name for the long-tailed mealybug, is not a mealybug and appa- 
rently is not even a scale insect. Therefore, most earlier references to C. 
adonidum Linnaeus are misidentifications. The first available name for the 
long-tailed mealybug is Dactylopius longispinus Targioni-Tozzetti (see para- 
graph 15). 

22. According to the Rules Pseudococcus Westwood, with its type-species 
Coccus cacti Linnaeus (misidentification, = Dactylopius coccus Costa), is the 
senior available generic name for the cocliineal insect D. coccus and related 
species. However, current usage of Pseudococcus (type-species Dactylopius 
longispinus) as a mealybug genus is well established. 

23. In support of the current usage of Pseudococcus the following citations 
are given: Balachowsky, 1953, p. 1047; Borchsenius, 1949, p. 90; De Lotto, 
1964, p. 377; Fernald, 1903b, p. 96; Ferris, 1950, p. 171; Green, 1922, p. 369; 
McKenzie, 1960, p. 725, 1962, p. 654, 1967, p. 288; Williams, 1962, p. 39. 



1 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Justification for Retaining Current Usage 

24. In the current systematic literature concerning Dactylopius and Pseudo- 
coccus, the concepts presented by Cockerell (1902b) are utilized by virtually all 
active scale taxonomists. Any change in these concepts would cause con- 
siderable confusion in the extensive taxonomic literature of the Pseudococcidae 
and Dactylopiidae. 

25. Dactylopius and Pseudococcus contain species of major economic 
importance in biological control, economic entomology, and plant quarantine. 
Because of this, over the past 50 years a large quantity of economic literature 
has been generated utilizing the current generic concepts. Any change in these 
concepts would cause serious disruption in this literature. 

26. To avoid the confusion caused by exchange of family name concepts 
(Dactylopiidae, cochineal insects, to Pseudococcidae, and Pseudococcidae, 
mealybugs, to Dactylopiidae) resulting from strict application of the Rules, 
a Ruling by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is 
necessary. It should be obvious that any change in the currently recognized 
families of scale insects would cause major disruption in the economic and 
taxonomic literature. 

27. It has been suggested that Article 70(a) (misidentified type-species) 
might be applied to this application. However, even though both C. adonidum 
Lirmaeus (type-species of Dactylopius) and C. cacti Linnaeus (type-species of 
Pseudococcus) were misidentified, this Article is not appropriate. Application 
of either (i) or (iii) would be undesirable, because neither circumstance would 
lead to current usage. Application of (i), for Dactylopius would mean that the 
species is not even a scale insect (De Lotto, 1 965). For Pseudococcus the nominal 
species involved in the misidentification of Coccus cacti Linnaeus is a member of 
the Margarodidae. If Coccus adonidum Linnaeus is considered as type then 
again the species would not be a scale insect. Application of (iii), for Dactylo- 
pius would result in this being the name for the mealybugs (now Pseudococcidae) 
and Pseudococcus would become the name for the cochineal insects (now 
Dactylopiidae). Application of (ii) is not possible because the identity of 
"the nominal species actually involved" is certain. 

28. Therefore, in the interest of stability and uniformity of scale insect 
nomenclature, I request that the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature use its Plenary Powers to conserve Dactylopius and Pseudococcus 
as they are presently understood. To accomplish this goal, the Commission is 
requested to : 

(1) Use its Plenary Powers to: 

(a) suppress the generic name Diaprosteci Costa, 1828, for the purposes 

of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; 

(b) rule that the date of publication of Costa's Fauna del Regno di 

Napoli, Famiglia de' coccinigliferi o de' gallinsetti. Emitteri, 
Napoli be accepted as [1835]; 

(c) set aside all designations of type-species made prior to the Rulings 

here requested for the genus Dactylopius Costa, 1835, and 
having done so, to designate Dactylopius coccus Costa, 1835, 
as the type-species of that genus; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 151 

(d) set aside all designations of type-species made prior to the Ruling 
here requested for the genus Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840, and 
having done so, to designate Dactylopius longispinus Targioni- 
Tozzetti, 1867, as the type-species of that genus. 

(2) Place the generic name Diaprosteci Costa, 1828, (as suppressed under 

the Plenary Powers in 1(a) above) on the Official Index of Rejected 
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) Place the family group name dactylopudae (correction of "Dactylo- 

pites") Signoret, 1875 (type-genus Dactylopius Costa, 1835), on the 
Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology. 

(4) Place the family group name pseudococcidae (correction of "Pseudo- 

coccini") Cockerell, 1905 (type-genus Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840), 
on the Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology. 

(5) Place Dactylopius Costa, 1835 (gender: masculine) type-species Dactylo- 

pius coccus Costa, 1835, by designation under the plenary powers in 
1(c) above, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(6) Place Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840 (gender: masculine) type-species 

Dactylopius longispinus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1867, by designation under 
the plenary powers in 1(d) above, on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology. 

(7) Place the specific name longispinus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1867, as published 

in the binomen Dactylopius longispinus (type-species of Pseudococcus 
Westwood, 1840) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(8) Place the specific name coccus Costa, 1835, as pubhshed in the binomen 

Dactylopius coccus (type-species of Dactylopius Costa, 1835) on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(9) Place the publication by Costa "Fauna del Regno di Napoli, Famiglia de' 

coccinigliferi o de' gallinsetti", Emitteri, Napoli on the Official List of 
Works Approved as Available in Zoological Nomenclature with the 
endorsement that its date of publication is to be cited as [1835]. 



Literature Cited 

Balachowsky, a. 1948. Les cochenilles de France, d'Europe, du Nord de TAfrique 
et du Bassin Mediterranean. IV. Monographie des Coccoidea. Classi- 
fication — Diaspidinae (Premiere partie). Actual. Sci. Ind., Entomol. Appl. 
1054 : 243-394 

1953. Sur un Dysmicoccus nouveau nuisible au Casuarina en A.O.F. Inst. 

Fr. Afr. Noire 15 : 1046-1050 

Blackwelder, R. E. 1949. Studies on the dates of books on Coleoptera. I. 

Coleopt. Bull. 3 : 42-46 
Borchsenius, N. S. 1949. Coccoidea, Pseudococcidae. Fauna of the USSR. 

Vol. 7. Akad. Nauk Zool. Inst. no. 38, 383 pp. 
Cockerell, T. D. A. 1893. Note on the genus Piewifococcwi Westwood. Entomol. 

News 4 : 317-318 

1899a. Some notes on Coccidae. Proa. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. \S99 : 259-219 

1899b. Tables for the determination of the genera of Coccidae. Can. Entomol. 

31 : 273-279 

1900. The name of the cochineal. Sci. (n.s.) 11 : 991-992 



152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

CocKERELL, T. D. A. 1902a. On a species of Pseudococcus from Mexico. Bol. 
Com. Parasit. Agric. Mex. 1 : 342-343. Also in Mem. Rev. Soc. Cien. "Antonio 
Alzate" 17 : 145-146 

1902b. A contribution to the knowledge of the Coccidae. Appendix. Some 

Brazilian Coccidae. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (ser. 7) 9 : 450-456 

— — 1905. Tables for the identification of Rocky Mountain Coccidae (scale 

insects and mealybugs). Univ. Colo. Stud. 2 : 189-203 
Costa, O. G. 1828. Prospetto di una nova divisione methodica del genere Coccus 

Lin., Fabr., Latr., Lamark. Pontano 1 : 449^54. Also in Napoli, Dalla 

Tipografia Trani. 8 pp. (1828) 

[1835]a. Fauna del regno di Napoli, famiglia de' coccinigliferi, o de' gallinsetli. 

Emitteri : Napoli, 23 pp. 

1835b. Nuove osservazioni intorno alle cocciniglie ed ai loro pretesi maschi. 

F. Fernandes, Napoli, 24 pp. 

1840. Title as above. Alti Real Inst. Incoragg. Sci. Nat. Napoli 6 : 31-52 

De Lotto, G. 1964. Observations on African mealy-bugs. Bull. Br. Mus. (Nat. 

Hist.) Entomol. 14 : 343-397 

1965. The nomenclatural status of the common long tailed mealy bug. 

J. Entomol. Soc. South Afr. 27 : 226-229 

1970. On the status of two genera of soft scales. Boll. Lab. Entomol. Agraria 

Filippo Silvestri Portici 28 : 257-261 

1974. Coccus sativus Lancry, 1791, Coccus mexicanus Lamarck, 1801 and 

Coccus silvestris Lancry, 1791 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed suppression 
under the plenary powers. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 31 : 

Fernald, M. E. 1903a. Notes on the Coccidae. Can. Entomol. 35 : 22 

— — 1903b. A catalogue of the Coccidae of the world. Mass. Agric. Exp. Stn. 

Spec. Bull. no. 88, 360 pp. 
Ferris, G. F. 1919. A contribution to the knowledge of the Coccidae of south- 
western United States. Stanf. Univ. Pubi, Univ. Ser. 67 pp. 

1937. Atlas of the scale insects of North America. Vol. 1. Stanf. Univ. 

Press: California, serial nos. SI-1 to SI-136 

1950. Atlas of the scale insects of North America. Series V. The Pseudo- 

coccidae {Part I). Stanf. Univ. Press: California. 1-278 

1955. Atlas of the scale insects of North America. Vol. VU. The families 

Aclerdidae, Asterolecaniidae, Conchaspididae, Dactylopiidae, and Lacciferidae. 
Stanf. Univ. Press: California. 1-233 

1957a. A brief history of the study of the Coccoidea. Microentomol. 21 : 

39-57 

1957b. A review of the family Eriococcidae. Microentomol. 22 : 81-89 

Green, B. E. 1922. The Coccidae of Ceylon. Vol. 5. Dulau and Co.: London, 

pp. 345-472 
Hoy, J. M. 1963. A catalogue of the Eriococcidae of the world. N.Z. Dep. Sci. 

Ind. Res. Bull. no. 150, 260 pp. 
KiRKALDY, G. W. 1904a. A list of the Coccidae of the Hawaiian Islands. Entonwl. 

37 : 226-230 

1904b. Biographical and nomenclatorial notes on the Hemiptera. No. 2. 

Entomol. 37 : 254-258 

Laing, F. 1944. A new injurious mealy-bug from the Gold Coast. Bull. Entomol. 

Res. 35 : 91-93 
LiNDiNOER, L. 1941. Ober nordwestdeutsche Schildlause. Bombus no. 17 : 66-67 

1943. Verzeichnis der Schildlaus — Gattungen, 1. Nachtrag. Z. Wien. 

Entomol. Cesell. 28 : 264-265 

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae, Edition X. Vol. 1, 823 pp. 
MacGillivray, A. D. 1921. The Coccidae. Scarab Co. : Illinois, 502 pp. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153 

Mamet, R. p. R. 1950. Notes on the Coccoidea of Madagascar. — I. Mem. Inst, 
scient. Madagascar {A) 4 : 17-38 

1951. Notes on the Coccoidea of Madagascar. — II. Mem. Inst, scient. 

Madagascar (A) 5 : 213-254 

Mann, J. 1969. Cactus feeding insects and raites. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. no. 256, 
158 pp. 

McKenzie, H. L. 1960. Taxonomic study of California mealybugs with descrip- 
tions of new species. Hilgardia 29 : 681-770 

1962. Third taxonomic study of California mealybugs, including additional 

species from North and South America. Hilgardia 32 : 637-688 

1967. Mealybugs of California with taxonomy, biology and control of North 

American species. Univ. California Press: Berkeley, 525 pp. 

Morrison, H. and Morrison, E. R. 1966. An annotated list of generic names of 
the scale insects. U.S. Dep. Agric. Misc. Publ. no. 1015, 206 pp. 

Morrison, H. and Renk, A. V. 1957. A selected bibliography of the Coccoidea. 
U.S. Dep. Agric. Misc. Publ. no. 734, 222 pp. 

SiGNORET, V. 1875. Essai sur les cochenilles ou gallinsectes. Groupe des Dacty- 
lopites. Ann. Soc. Entomol. Fr. (ser. 5) 5 : 305-352 

Targioni-Tozzetti, a. 1866. Come certe cocciniglie sieno cagione di alcune 
melate delle piante, e di alcune ruggini; e come la cocciniglia del fico dia in 
abbondanza una specie di cera. R. Accad. Geografi Atti (Firenze) (n.s.) 13 : 1 15- 
137 

1867. Studii sulle cocciniglie. Mem. Soc. Ilal. Sci. Nat. Vol. 3, 87 pp. 

Westwood, J. O. 1839-1840. An introduction to the modern classification of insects: 

founded on the natural habits and corresponding organisation of the different 
families. Vol. II. A. Spottiswoode, London, 587 pp. Also, 1838-1840, 
Synopsis of the genera of British insects. 158 pp. 
Williams, D. J. 1962. The British Pseudococcidae. Bull. Br. Mus. {Nat. Hist.) 
Entomol. 12 : 1-79 

1969. The family-group names of the scale insects. Bull. Br. Mus. {Nat. Hist.) 

Entomol. 23 : 315-341 



154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

COCCUS SATIVUS LANCRY, 1791, COCCUS MEXICANUS 

LAMARCK, 1801 AND COCCUS SILVESTRIS hAHCKY, 1791 

(INSECTA, HOMOPTERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION 

UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N.(S.) 2057 

By Giovanni De Lotto {Plant Protection Research Institute, 
Pretoria, South Africa) 

In the course of a revision of the cochineal insects of the genus Dactylopius 
O. Costa, 1835 (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Dactylopiidae), I have found three 
senior synonyms of two specific names in general use. Under the provision of 
Article 23(a-b) of the Code, I formally apply for the suppression of these 
senior synonyms and their placement on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. They are (A)(i) — Coccus sativus Lancry, 
1791 and (ii) Coccus mexicanus Lamarck, 1801 and (B) — Coccus silvestris 
Lancry, 1791. 

The names in "A" were introduced for the cochineal insect of commerce 
currently referred to as Dactylopius coccus O. Costa, 1835*. This name was 
proposed by Cockerell (1902) following his discovery (Cockerel!, 1899) that the 
description of Coccus cacti Linnaeus, 1758 (under which name the insect was 
previously known) actually referred to a species of margarodidae, a family of 
the scale insects quite apart from the dactylopiidae. Since then the name 
D. coccus has been widely used in text books (e.g. Imms, A. D. 1960 (9th 
edition) A General Text-book of Entomology, Methuen & Co. Ltd., London), 
and other works of general knowledge (e.g. The Encyclopaedia Britannica). 

The following list of references satisfies the requirements of Article 79(b) : 
Balachowsky, 1948; Ferris, 1955, 1957; Housse, 1948; Hoy, 1963; Lindinger, 
1943, 1937; Mamet, 1950a, b, c; Mann, 1969; Williams, 1969. 

The name in "B" is an older synonym of the species currently referred to as 
Dactylopius tomentosus (Lamarck, 1801). Although this species is less known 
than D. coccus and in spite of some confusion on its status and identity made by 
some biologists the name is firmly established in the present taxonomic litera- 
ture. It has been used by the following authors in the last 50 years: Balachow- 
sky, 1959; Cockerell, 1929; De Lotto, 1959; Dodd, 1927; Ferris, 1955; 
Lizer y Trelles, 1937, 1939; Lobdell, 1937; Mamet, 1951; Silvestri, 1939. 

It should be noted that the three names have never been used since they were 
first introduced. They were discovered a few years ago by L. Lindinger. 
He (1943) at first erroneously credited the authorship of sativus and silvestris to 
Thierry de Menonville (1787); but later following the opportunity to see the 
original source, he (Lindinger, 1949) ascribed both species to Lancry. Lindin- 
ger's suggestion though right as far as the principle of priority is concerned, 
is however, utterly undesirable and unnecessary. 

*0. Costa, 1835. The date of publication has never been satisfactorily settled. How- 
ever taxonomists commonly endorse the year 1835 as the most likely right date as given by 
Fernald (1903) and Lindinger (1937). See also p. 147. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 155 

I therefore request the International Commission to: 

(1) use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority 

but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the names sativus Lancry, 
1791, as published in the binomen Coccus sativus; silvestris Lancry, 
1791 as published in the binomen Coccus silvestris and mexicanus 
Lamarck, 1801 as pubished in the binomen Coccus mexicanus. 

(2) place the specific names suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index 

of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

References 

Balachowsky, a. 1948. Actual Sci. Ind., Ent. Appl. No. 1054 : 256, (/). coccus) 

1959. Revta Acad, colomb. Cienc. exact, fis. nat. 10 : 363 (D. tomentosus) 
COCKERELL, T. D. A. 1899. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1899 : 259-275 

1902. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 9 : 450^56 

1929. Science 69 : 329 (O. tomentosus) 

De Lotto, G. 1959. J. ent. Soc. Stli. Afr. 22 : \53 {D. tomentosus) 

DoDD, A. P. 1927. Bull. Coun. scient. ind. Res. Melb. 34 : 11 (£>. tomentosus) 

Ferris, G. F. 1955. Ai/as Scale Ins. N. Am. vol. 7, Stanford University Press, 

California: 85 (D. coccus); 92 (D. tomentosus) 

1957. Microentomology 22 : 85 (D. coccus) 

HoussE, R. P. R. 1948. Acta. zool. lilloaiia 5 : 19-39 (D. coccus) 

Hoy, J. 1963. Bull. N.Z. Dep. scient. ind. Res. 150 : 57 {D. coccus) 

Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de M. de 1801. Syst. Anim.: 299 

Lancry, M. 1791. Cactier. Cactus. In: Encycl. Methodique Agriculture 

2 : 454-529 (484-511) 
Lindinger, L. 1937. Ent. Jb. 46 : 183 (D. coccus). 1943. Z. wien. ent. Ges. 

28 : 265 (D. coccus) 

1949. Entomon, Munich 1 : 210-213 

LoBDELL, G. H. 1937. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 30 : 78 (D. tomentosus) 

Lizer y Trelles, C. 1937. Revta Soc. ent. argent. 11 : 333 (Z). tomentosus) 

1939. Physis, B. Aires 17 : 183 (O. tomentosus) 

Mamet, R. 1950. Mem. Inst, scient. Madagascar (A)4 : 17 {D. coccus) 

1951. Mem. Inst, scient. Madagascar {A)5 : 22Q(D. tomentosus), 222(D. coccus) 

Mann, J. 1969. Bull. U.S. nam. Mus. No. 256 : 138 (D. coccus) 

Silvestri, F. 1939. Compendia di Ent. Appli. 1(2) : 661, 666 (D. tomentosus) 
Thiery de Menonville, N. J. 1787. Traite de la culture du Nopal, et de l' education 

de la Cochenille dans les colonies Francoises de VAmerique: precede d'un voyage 

a Guaxaca, etc. Cap-Fran?ais pp. cxliv, 439 
Williams, D. J. 1969. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Ent.) 12 : 324 (D. coccus) 



156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

REQUEST FOR A RULING ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF 

CON US MOLUCCENSIS (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA). 

Z.N.(S.) 2059 

By Walter O. Cernohorsky {Auckland Institute and Museum, 
Private Bag, Auckland, 1 , New Zealand) 

1. Kiister (1838) published the description of Conus moluccensis from the 
Moluccas Islands, and cited as reference a prior, non binominal description and 
illustration from Chemnitz (1795). Kiister's illustrations for the species were 
copies of figures published by Chemnitz (op. cit.). Due to the rarity of the 
species, the taxon C. moluccensis Kiister, 1838, has been cited only about five 
times in popular and scientific malacological Hterature during the last 50 years, 
and more often than not, the name has erroneously been applied to the related 
but specifically distinct Conus proximus Sowerby, 1859. 

2. During the preparation of a paper on C. moluccensis, the writer has 
come across an earlier and probably available erection of C. moluccensis by 
DUlwyn (1817). The mode of proposal, however, is in such an ambiguous 
manner that it is not at all clear whether or not the name is nomenclaturally 
available. The name Conus moluccensis was not, strictly speaking, published 
in the synonymy of C. auger [Lightfoot, 1786], but was included in the discussion 
of the species by Dillwyn, and referred to the same description and illustration 
in Chemnitz {op. cit.) as the one cited by Kiister {op. cit.). Dillwyn's citation of 
the name C. moluccensis in italics in the Index to his work would indicate that he 
did not clearly accept the name as a valid taxon, while the phrase "which diifer 
materially from each other both in shape and colour" could imply that he 
accepted C. pertusus Born and C. moluccensis as vahd names. A copy of page 
421 showing the manner of erection of C. moluccensis by Dillwyn, is appended to 
this application. 

3. Several papers on C. moluccensis and related taxa are currently in pre- 
paration and it is important that the authorship of the name be clarified. A 
rejection or acceptance of Dillwyn as author of C. moluccensis would in no way 
affect nomenclatorial stability, whereas a straight out ruling that the name is not 
available as from Dillwyn, may have repercussions affecting other parenthetical 
remarks in his work. 

4. The International Commission is therefore requested to vote for one 
of the following alternatives : 

(A) use its plenary powers to suppress both for the purposes of the Law 
of Priority and that of Homonymy, the name moluccensis Dillwyn, 
1817, as published in the binomen Conus moluccensis; 

(1) to place the specific name moluccensis Kiister, 1838, as published 

in the binomen Conus moluccensis, on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology; 

(2) to place the specific name moluccensis Dillwyn, 1817, as published 

in the binomen Conus moluccensis (as suppressed under the 



Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 157 



CONUS. 421 

Xt9 Ctiotini jlJamtin Seifglft p> QS> t, 6. f. 6> o 

Enc. Metk. t. 343. f. 7. S 

Inhabits the coasts of Senegal. Adunson. "^ 

Shell about an inch and a quarter or an inch and a half long, "^ 

and not half as broad, and is m'lrc nearly allied to C. Radix > 

tlian to C. Jamaicensis ; from the former it dilTers in colour c 

and in the shape of its spire, and it is not much more than .§ 

half so broad, and far more .cylindrical than the latter. g 



AUGUR. 135. Shell conical, grooved at the base, :| 

white, with numerous transverse rows of "S 

reddish dots, and two of oblong brown g 

streaks ; S23ire obtuse, and the whirls chan- ,1 

nelled. ^ 

Conus Augur. Solander's MSS. Portland Cat. p. 44. | 

lot 1046. Bniguiere Enc. Meth. p. 685. Shaw's Nat. -S 

Misc. xxi. t. 890. Lamarck Ann. du Mus. w. p. 277. o 

Conus puuctatus. Gmelin, p. 3389. Schreibers Conch, ^ 

j. p. 38. •« 

Conus Magus, ilfar/wj, ii. p. 288. t. 58. f. 641. Born •§" 

Mus. p. l64. Schroetcr EtnL i. p. 50. Gmelin, p. § 

3392. Schreibers Conch, i. p. 42. "^ 

li' Enseigne Chinois. Favanne, ii. p. 463. ^ 

Lister Conch, t. 755. f. 7. Rumphius, t. 32. f. Q. Petiver r-: 

Amb. t. 5. f. 10. Argenville App. t. 2. f. B. Knorr, S 

vi. t. 13. f. 6. Enc. Meth. t. 333. f. 6. 

Inhabits the coasts of Ceylon. Brtiguiere. Amboyna. Shaza, > 

Shell one or two inches long, and may be readily known from. J 

C. Magus by its being considerably more than half as broad. c 

As Bruguiere's C.pertusus is placed next to this species, it _g 

may be here remarked that I have seen a specimen of C. 

Ntissatella, in which the granular dots had been polished oif ■ 

so as to leave the places on which they stood deprived of the 

enamel coat, and which had consequently been acted on by §■ 

the acids used in cleaning, so as to form minute hollow punc- " 

tures. C. perlusus of Bruguiere, C. Moluccensis of Chem- g 

nitz. (xi. p. 63. t. 183. f. 1780 and 1781.) and Le Cornet d ^ 

Trous of Favanne, (ii. p. 621. t. 79- f. M.) which differ | 

materially from each other both in shape and colour, are -^ 

described with punctured striae, and it appears rather doubt- 2 

ful whether the punctures may not have been produced 

either in the same or some other artificial manner. This 

observation applies also to C. acutangtflui of Chemnitz, zi. 

p. 69. t. 1S2. f. 1772 and 1773. 



>. 



s«. 



b 



1 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

plenary powers in (A) above) on the Official Index of Rejected 
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ; 
OR 
(B) rule that Dillwyn (1817) made the name Conus moluccensis available for 
taxonomic usage and is to be cited as its author, and 
(1) place the specific name moluccensis Dillwyn, 1817, as published in 
the binomen Conus moluccensis, on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology. 

References 

Chemnitz, J. H. 1795. Neues Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet. Niirnberg, 

11 : 63, pi. 183, figs. 1780-81 
Dillwyn, L. W. 1 8 1 7. A descriptive catalogue of Recent shells arranged according 

to tlie Linnaean method: with particular attention to the synonymy. London, 

1 : 421 and 2: Index 
KusTER, H. C. 1838. Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet von Martini and Chemnitz. 

Familie der Coneae oder Conidae. ed. 2. Niirnberg, 4(2) : 121, 181, pi. 23, 

figs. 4-5 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 159 

SPHEX VIATICA LINNAEUS: A PROBLEM OF TYPES AND 

REVISERS (HYMENOPTERA, SPHECIDAE OR POMPILIDAE). 

Z.N.(S.) 2061 

By Curtis W. Sabrosky {Systematic Entomology Laboratory, 
Agricultural Research Service, USDA^) 

The problem of the identity of Sphex viatica Linnaeus has a confused 
history, and at almost every step there are points, both nomenclatural and 
zoological, upon which opinions differ. Authors who have published on the 
problem usually seem to be positive that no other interpretation than their 
own is possible; such an approach is of course satisfying for the individual, 
but not authoritatively helpful for others. I am not a hymenopterist, but my 
advice was requested on nomenclatural aspects of the problem, and I believe 
that clearcut decisions on these would be helpful here and in similar cases of 
disagreement. The specific name is correctly viaticus, but the original spelling — 
and that of most authors — is used for present purposes. 

2. The spider wasp family is herein referred to as Pompilidae, without 
thereby intending comment on Pompilus and Pompilidae vs. Psammochares 
and Psammocharidae. Arguments on that are not strictly relevant to the specific 
question of the identity of Sphex viatica. 

3. The essential publications are as follows: 

(a) Linnaeus, 1758 : 570. — Sphex viatica briefly described, with citations 
to Frisch (1721) and others, and a statement that it provisions its nests with 
caterpillars. 

(b) Linnaeus, 1761 : 412. — Redescription of S. viatica, followed by a 
description of S. fiisca, the latter admittedly a pompilid. The biological note 
of 1758 was omitted. 

(c) De Villers, 1789 : 229-230.— Descriptions of viatica and fusca, the 
former accompanied by the biological note from the 1758 edition. Townes 
(1973) maintained that "Villiers [sic] is indisputably a revisor [sic]", but the 
description of viatica is still a bit confused, and the Frisch reference is still 
included in the citations under viatica. Moreover, despite Townes' statement 
that de Villers "took the trouble to point out some of Fabricius' confusion 
between the sphecid and the psammocharid, showed clearly the distinction 
between the two species, and stated definitely that viatica was the sphecid", 
the fact remains that de Villers placed viatica and fusca together in his section 
of Sphex with "abdomen subsessili" (pp. 229-254) [i.e., including pompilids] 
but placed hirsuta Scopoli-a sphecid believed by Townes to be viatica — in the 
section "abdomine petiolato" [i.e., including sphecids]. 

(d) Richards, 1935 : 165.— "The type of Sphex viatica Linnaeus, 1758 
is preserved in his collection at Burlington House. It is a female of Podalonia 
hirsuta (Scopoli, 1 763). Linnaeus himself says the insect preys on caterpillars, 
so there is no excuse for using 'viatica' as the specific name of a Psammocharid". 

'Mail address: c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

(e) Pate, 1946 : 126. — Repeated the biological note and part of the descrip- 
tion of Linnaeus, 1758, and commented: "These features are certainly not 
characteristics of a spider wasp. An examination of the figures, and the accounts 
as well, of Frisch, Degeer, and others cited by Linnaeus in 1758 and also in 
his earlier and later works show a wasp that is undubitably a Sphecoid rather 
than a Psammocharid". 

(f) Verhoeff, 1947 : 334-6. — The "type" accepted by Richards does not 
agree with the Linnaean description. S. viatica in Linnaeus (1758) "was 
founded on the common pompiUd "abdomine subsessUe, cingulis nigris" of 
which Frisch gave an unmistakable figure". Also, "both the description and 
the figure of Frisch 1721 : p. 11, Tab. If. 13, placed in the synonymy in Linnaeus 
in 1758, fully agree with the black-banded pompilid". 

(g) Van der Vecht, 1958 : 47. — Agreed with Verhoeff that the Linnaean 
specimen referred to by Richards should not be regarded as the type because it 
does not agree with the Linnaean description. The original (1758) was mixed, 
restriction to one species is necessary, and "this can only be done by selecting 
one of the syntypes to be the lectotype". No specimen being known to visit, 
hence "I therefore select this figure (no. XIII (c) of Tab. I of vol. 2 of J. L. 
Frisch . . . I72I) as the lectotype of Sphex viatica Linne, 1758". 

(h) Townes, 1973 : 91-96. — Review of the whole problem. Sphex 
viatica was based on a "mixed series". Linnaeus' 1758 diagnosis "seems to 
apply to the psammocharid, his statement on biology applies to the sphecid, 
while of his four references to previous descriptions it appears that the two he 
himself authored (1746 and 1756) apply to the sphecid, one by Frisch (1721) 
applies to the psammocharid, and one by Ray (1710) apphes to the sphecid". 
Linnaeus (1761) was the first reviser, or if not so considered because of some 
residual confusion carried over from 1758, then deVillers (1789) "is indisputably 
a revisor, and would be the first re visor if Linnaeus 1761 is not accepted as 
such". Van der Vecht (1958) "was not free to act as he did" both because his 
lectotype was not in agreement with the first reviser and because Richards had 
already designated a lectotype; either of these reasons "would be sufficient to 
invalidate liis action". Townes' conclusion: The name viatica must be appUed 
to the sphecid known as Podalonia hirsuta (Scopoli, 1763). 

From this history, several questions emerge, as discussed in the following 
paragraphs. 

4. Was Sphex viatica Linnaeus, 1758, based on a "mixed series"? It is 
interesting to note here the positive but diametrically opposed opinions of 
speciaUsts: the "indubitably a Sphecoid rather than a Psammocharid" of Pate 
(1946) contrasted with Verhoeff 's equally positive statements about Frisch's 
"unmistakable figure" and "both the description and the figure of Frisch, 
1721 . . . fully agree with the black-banded pompilid". However, both van 
der Vecht (1958) and Townes (1973), who are opposite sides of the argument of 
identity, agree that when one considers the total picture — Linnaeus' description, 
his citation, and his statement of the biology — one must conclude that viatica 
Linnaeus was a mixture of a sphecid and a pompilid. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 161 

First reviser vs. iectotype designation 

5. What is tiie standing of a first reviser compared to Iectotype designation 
by a later author? If one were to agree that either Linnaeus (1761) or de 
Villers (1789) was the first reviser, as claimed by Townes, does that action 
take precedence over the much later designation of a Iectotype by Richards 
(1935) or van der Vecht (1958)? Townes insisted that we must follow the 
action of the first reviser and that a Iectotype designated later has no standing 
unless it agrees with the action (restriction) of the first reviser, hence van der 
Vecht "was not free to act as he did". Unfortunately, Townes made no mention 
of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, under which a Iectotype 
is not required to agree with the action of a first reviser. Such agreement 
is only a recommendation (cf. Art. 74a.i and Rec. 74A). In principle I agree 
with Townes, and at the London Colloquium on Nomenclature I argued strongly 
that a Iectotype should be required to be consistent with a previous valid restric- 
tion or valid successive restrictions. However the vote was against that 
position, and the best I could achieve was Recommendation 74A. In terms 
of the Code, therefore, the answer is clear: So long as no reviser had designated 
a Iectotype, any later author was free to do so, and the first publication of a 
valid designation then fixed the status of the specimen (Art. 74a.i) no matter 
whether it agreed or disagreed with the action of the reviser(s). 

6. Incidentally, I question that de Villers was "indisputably a revisor", as 
Townes has claimed. Sphex viatica is still in the group with "abdomine 
subsessili", and the Latin description is, except for addition of the single word 
"pubescens", identical with that of 1758, as is the biological note. More 
citations are given in the synonymy than in 1758, but the figure of Frisch, which 
both van der Vecht and Townes agree appUes to the pompilid, is still cited under 
viatica. If Linnaeus (1761) can be questioned because it is "without elimination 
of some of the previous confusion" (Townes, 1973 : 92), then de Villers (1789> 
must surely be questionable on the same basis. 

Lectotype Designation 

7. Two different authors, Richards (1935) and van der Vecht (1958), are 
involved in the question of lectotype designation, the former having chosen a 
sphecid, the latter a figure which, at least as agreed by Townes, Verhoeff, and 
van der Vecht, is of a pompilid. If both had dealt with true syntypes, then the 
first designation would hold. However, the Richards "designation" is, I believe, 
open to challenge, on possibly two grounds. 

8. Nomenclaturally, Richards' publication raises a question that is not cov- 
ered in the Code. He cited "the type" but the introduction to his paper and his 
practice throughout it make it obvious that "type" meant the single specimen 
standing in the Linnaean collection and presumed to be the holotype, rather 
than a conscious designation of a lectotype from two or more syntypes.* 
True lectotype designation, even if it used the word "type" rather than "lecto- 
type", should take cognizance of the existence or possible existence of syntypes, 
and should clearly choose one over the others. Mere reference to a single 

•Professor Richards has recently stated emphatically, in a letter to van der Vecht, that it 
was not his intention to designate the specimens in the Linnaean collection as lectotypes. 



162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

specimen now existing in a certain collection as the presumed "type" is not in 
itself true lectotype designation. Must one accept a presumed (holo) type in 
the face of proof that the species was actually based on a series of syntypes? 
Must Richards' "type" be recognized? 

9. On practical grounds, Richards' "type" can be questioned in another way. 
As the question in paragraph 3d shows, Richards accepted as "the type of 
Sphex viatica" a sphecid in the Linnaean collection in London, noted the bio- 
logical item in the original description, and concluded "so there is no excuse 
for using "viatica' as the specific name of a Psammocharid". However, in 
giving great weight to the biological note, he ignored the fact that the specimen 
did not agree with Linnaeus' original description. In view of the admittedly 
uncertain origin and validity of some specimens in the Linnaean collection, 
as in all very old collections, one may with considerable justification doubt that 
the "viatica" now existing in the collection was truly an original specimen, 
inasmuch as it clearly does not agree with the original description. If this is 
"proof" that it was not a syntype, then Richards' designation would be invalid 
(Art. 74a). 

10. Van der Vecht (1958) unquestionably dealt with an originally included 
specimen, via a cited figure : He designated the Frisch figure cited in Linnaeus' 
original publication of viatica, and such a designation "is to be treated as 
designation of the specimen represented by the figure" (Art. 74b), and this is 
counted as one of the syntypes if the figure was part of the basis of the nominal 
taxon (Art. 73c). Townes maintained that van der Vecht "was not free to 
act as he did" because (1) his lectotype did not agree with the action of the first 
reviser, and (2) Richards' "designation" was prior. However, under the Code, 
Townes' first objection falls, and the second objection may not hold depending 
on interpretation (cf. paragraphs 8 and 9, preceeding). Van der Vecht con- 
cluded that no previous author had validly selected a lectotype, and he proceeded 
to do so. 

Conclusions 

1 1 . The question of mixed series, more properly a matter for specialists 
to decide, seems to be answered satisfactorily by the weight of recent opinion 
among specialists. On the question of lectotype vs. first reviser, the Code 
makes it clear that a lectotype is not required to agree with the action of a 
first reviser, and that designation of a valid lectotype takes precedence. Accor- 
dingly, the question of whether Lirmaeus' 1761, or de Villers 1789, was or was 
not a reviser is irrelevant and not critical to the problem. 

12. With reference to lectotype designation, however, the Commission is 
asked to decide two questions for the general guidance of taxonomists: 

a. Does mere reference to or listing of a single avaOable primary type- 
specimen as the "type" or the "holotype", without evidence of consideration 
of the existence or possible existence of syntypes, constitute lectotype desig- 
nation ? 

b. Does fundamental disagreement between the morphological characters 
of a specimen that is possibly a syntype and the original description of the 
same life stage constitute grounds for rejection of that specimen as a syntype? 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 163 

13. Finally, in the present case, the Commission is asked to decide what 
is the lectotype of Sphex viatica Linnaeus, 1758, and to place that specific 
name, in the correct form viaticus, on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology. 

Literature Cited 
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, ed. 10 

1761. Fauna Svecica. ed. 2 

Pate, V. S. L. 1946. The generic names of the spider wasps (Psammocharidae 

olim Pompilidae) and other type species (Hymenoptera: Aculeata). Trans. 

Amer. Entomol. Soc. 11 : 65-137 
Richards, O. W. 1935. Notes on the nomenclature of the aculeate Hymenoptera, 

with special reference to British genera and species. Trans. Roy. Entomol. 

Soc. London 83 : 143-176 
Townes, H. 1973. The type of Sphex viatica Linnaeus (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae). 

Polskie Pismo Entomol. 43 : 9 1 -96 
van der Vecht, J. 1958. The identity of Sphex viatica Linne, 1758 (Hymenoptera, 

Pompilidae). Entomol. Berichten 18 : 47-48 
Verhoeff, p. M. F. 1947. Sphex viatica Linne, 1758 = Anoplius viaticus (L.) 

(Hym. Pomp.). Tijdschr. Entomol. (1945) 88 : 334-336 
DE ViLLERS, C. J. 1789. Caroli entomologia . . . Vol. 3 



164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

PLEA FOR THE CONSERVATION OF APHIS PYRI BOYER DE 

FONSCOLOMBE, 1841 AND THE SUPPRESSION OF APHIS PYRI 

VALLOT, 1802, APHIS PYRI KITTEL, 1827 AND SEVEN OTHER 

BINOMINALS PROPOSED BY KITTEL IN 1827. Z.N.(S.) 2062 

By V. F. Eastop {^British Museum {Natural History) London S. W.l) 

This application concerns an aphid name for illustrations pubUshed by 
Reaumur (1737) proposed by Vallot (1802) and never subsequently referred to 
in aphid literature. This name antedates that of a pest species, Aphis pyri 
Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841, the pear-bedstraw aphid, now known as Dysaphis 
pyri (Boyer de Fonscolombe). Kittel (1827) proposed a binomen, Aphis pyri 
but Kittel's names in that paper have been ignored by aphid workers until 
recently because they were thought to be invalid (Hille Ris Lambers 1939, 
Temminckia 4 : 2), as Kittel did not use binominals consistently. If accepted, 
several of Kittel's names would preoccupy the currently accepted names of well 
known species. 

1. Reaumur (1737, Mem. serv. Hist. Ins., Paris, vol. 3, mem. 9 plate 24 figs 
1 & 2) figured a rolled pear leaf and an apWd. Figure 5 on the same plate is of 
a leaf edge gall on apple. The pear aphid is probably the species now called 
Dysaphis reaumuri (MordvUko) and the apple gall was probably caused by 
Dysaphis devecta (Walker) or a close relative. 

2. De Geer (1773, Mem. Hist. Ins. 3 : 53-55) describes Aphis pomi, a pest 
of apples still called Aphis pomi De Geer and about which there has been no 
subsequent confusion. 

3. Vallot (1802, Concordance Systematique . . . ouvrage de Reaumur, 
Paris, p. 94) proposes the name Aphis pyri for figures 1 & 2 of plate 24 of 
Reaumur (1737). He also {ibid. p. 95) proposes Aphis pomi as a name for 
figure 5 but this name is preoccupied by Aphis pomi De Geer. 

4. Kittel (1827, Sur les Pucerons, suivi de la description de quelques 
especes nouvelles, Mem. Soc. Lin., Paris 5 1826: 133-155) described 13 species of 
aphids including one living on pear which is named Aphis pyri. Kittel used 5 
trinominals and 8 binominals as follows: 1 Aphis aquilegiae nigra, 2 A. aquilegiae 
flava, 3 A. sonchi pruinosa, 4 A. sonchi viridifurcata, 5 A. hyosciami, 6 A. pyri, 
1 A. solani, 8 A. piperis, 9 A. epilobii, 10 A. scirpi, 1 1 A. morae, 12 A. lavaterae, 
13 A. salicis minor. If accepted 6, 7, 9 and 10 would preoccupy the currently 
accepted names of well known species, one of which is the glasshouse-potato 
aphid. 

5. Boyer de Fonscolobe (1841, Ann. ent. Soc. France 10 : 189-190) des- 
cribed Aphis pyri as a new species, and this as Dysaphis pyri is the currently 
accepted name of the pear-bedstraw apliid. 

6. Kaltenbach (1843, Mon.fam. Pflanzenlduse, pp. 15 & 64) describes Aphis 
solani and A. epilobii respectively. Aphis epilobii is the currently accepted name 
for a common aphid on Epilobium and Aulacorthum solani (Kaltenbach) is 
the glasshouse-potato aphid and is known to transmit at least 38 virus diseases. 



Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 3. September 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 165 

7. Passerini (1874, Bui. ent. Soc. ital. 6 : 137) described Toxoptera scirpi 
a widespread European species subsequently known as Schizaphis scirpi 
(Passerini) and probably the species which Kittel (1827) described as Aphis 
scirpi. 

8. Borner (1952, Mitt. Thiiring, Bot. Ges. 4(3)) accepted Kittel's names and 
used them to preoccupy or replace well known names. 

9. If Aphis pyri Vallot, 1802 were accepted it would replace Dysaphis 
reaumuri (Mordvilko) and would preoccupy Dysaphis pyri (Boyer de Fons- 
colombe, 1841) which would require a new name. The application of the 
binomen Dysaphis pyri to a different species of Aphid could only cause con- 
fusion as it would often be impossible to tell in which sense the name was being 
used. 

10. The Kittel (1827) names (paragraph 4 of this application) are not re- 
quired for any species, and his species are difficult to recognise. At least one 
of them. Aphis solani, is probably not an aphid, so if accepted could become 
available for a member of another family, causing confusion there. If accepted, 
four of Kittel's binominals Aphis pyri, solani, epilobii and scirpi would pre- 
occupy the names currently used for well known aphids. The names had not 
been used prior to 1952 as it was thought that they were invalid because the 
author did not consistently use binominals. 

11. The Commission is asked to conserve the name Aphis pyri Boyer de 
Fonscolombe, 1841 and to suppress the name Aphis pyri Vallot, 1802. 

12. The Commission is also asked to suppress the names proposed by 
Kittel (1827) as the author did not consistently use binominals, and because if 
they were to be accepted they would require changes in the names of two well 
known pests, Aulacorthum solani (KItb.) and Dysaphis pyri (B.d.F.) and in two 
other well known aphids. Aphis epilobii Kltb. and Schizaphis scirpi (Passerini). 

Therefore the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is 
asked : 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name pyri Vallot 1802, 

as published in the binomen Aphis pyri, for the purposes of the Law of 
Priority and for those of the Law of Homonymy; 

(2) to declare that the work Kittel, 1 827, Sur les Pucerons, suivi de la des- 

cription de quelques especes nouvelles. Memoires de la Societe 
Lineene de Paris, volume 5, 1826: 133-155, is not available for the 
purposes of zoological nomenclature by reason of the fact that the 
author did not consistently apply the principles of binominal nomen- 
clature therein ; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific 

nsLme pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841, as published in the binomen 
Aphis pyri; 

(4) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 

Specific Names in Zoology : 

(a) pyri VaUot, 1 802, as published in the binomen Aphis pyri; 

(b) the following names published by Kittel, 1 827 : 

Aphis aquilegiae nigra page 148. 
Aphis aquilegiae flava page 148. 



166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Aphis sonchi pruinosa page 149. 

Aphis sonchi viridifurcata page 149. 

Aphis hyosciami page 149. 

Aphis pyri page 1 50. 

Aphis solani page 151. 

Aphis piperis page 152. 

Aphis epilobii page 1 52. 

Aphis scirpi page 1 53. 

Aphis morae page 153. 

Aphis lavaterae page 1 54. 

Aphis salicis minor page 1 54. 
(5) to place the following work on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Works in Zoology: Kittel, 1827. Sur les Pucerons, suivi de la des- 
cription de quelques especes nouvelles. Memoires de la Societe 
Linneenne de Paris volume 5 1826: 133-155. 



974 



INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



A. The Honorary Life President 

The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman) 

B. The Members of the Trust 

The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merton, P.C, C.H. 

Mon. J. Forest 

Col. Frances J. Griffin, O.B.E. 

(Secretary and Managing Director) 
Dr. N. E. Hickin 
Dr. L. B. Holthuis 
Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. 
Prof. Dr. O. Kraus 
Mr. R. V. Melville 
Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. 
Dr. N. R. Stoll 
Mr. C. W. Wright, C.B. 
Dr. G. F. de Witte 

C. The Officers of the Trust 

Margaret Green, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant) 

CONTENTS 
(continued from front wrapper) 



Opinions 

Opinion 1019 (Byrsocrypla Haliday, 1838) 
Opinion 1020 (P/e((roacaH//;(Vei Canavari, 1883) ... 
Opinion 1021 (Clinus aciileatiis Reinhardt, 1837) ... 
Opinion 1022 (Cteitodoiila eloiigata Salter, 1873) ... 

Opinion 1023 (cassidae & cassidinae) 

Opinion 1024 (iTpWiCYK Cope, 1866) 

Opinion 1025 {Salamandra tigrina Green, 1825) ... 

New Cases 

Request for the suppression of Didermocerus Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia) 
(P. J. Boylan & M. A. Green) 

Cicada cingulata (Fabricius) var. obscura Hudson, 1891 (Insecta, Homoptera) : 
proposed suppression as a nomen oblitiim (C. A. Fleming & J. S. Dugdale). . . 

Hymenosoma laeve Targioni Tozzetti, 1877 (Crustacea, Brachyura): proposed 
suppression under the plenary powers (J. S. Lucas) 

Polygramma Chevrolat, 1837 (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae): proposed suppres- 
sion under the plenary powers in order to conserve Leptinotarsa Stal, 1854 
(Richard E. White & Richard L. Jacques) 

Dactylopius Costa, 1835 and Pseudococcus Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Homop- 
tera): proposed designation of type-species under the plenary powers 
with proposed suppression of Diaprosleci Costa, 1828 (Douglass R. Miller) 

Coccus salivus Lancry, 1791, Coccus mexicaitus Lamarck, 1801 and Coccus 
silvesliis Lancry, 1791 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed suppression under 
the plenary powers (Giovanni De Lotto) 

Coiuis moluccensis (Mollusca, Gastropoda): request for a ruling on the author- 
ship (Walter O. Cernohorsky) 

Sphex viatica Linnaeus: a problem of types and revisers (Hymenoptera: 
Sphecidae or Pompilidae) (Curtis Sabrosky) 



117 
121 
123 
125 
127 
130 
133 



135 



140 



142 



144 



146 



154 



156 



159 



CONTENTS 
{continued from inside back wrapper) Page 

Aphis pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841: plea for conservation; Aphis pyri 
Vallot, 1802, Aphis pyri Kittel, 1827 and seven other binominals proposed 
by Kittel in 1827: proposed suppression (V. F. Eastop) 164 

Comments 

Comment on the conservation of Dictyonema flabelliforme (Eichwald, 1840) 

(Graptolithina) by designation of a neotype (A. M. Obut) 104 

Comment in support of a proposal by N. D. Riley and L. G. Higgins on 

Papilio actaeon Fabricius, 1775 v. Papilio acteon von Rottemburg, 1775 

(Lee D.Miller) 104 

Comment on the proposed validation of cymatiidae Iredale, 1913 (R. V. 

Melville) 105 

Further comment on Chanda Ham. Buch., Hamillonia Swainson, and their 

type-species (P. J. Whitehead, P. H. Greenwood and E. Trewavas) ... 107 
Comment on Ditylenchus Filipjev, 1936 (Nematoda): application for protection 

under the plenary powers (Henning Lemche; P. A. A. Loof) 110 

Comment on the requested confirmation of type-species for Donacilla De 

Blainville, 1819 and Amphidesma Lamarck, 1818 (Bivalvia) (R. V. Melville) 1 1 1 
Comment on Palaeofavosites Twenhofel, 1914 (Anthozoa, Tabulata): proposed 

validation under the plenary powers (Klemens Oekentorp) 112 

Proponents comment on effect of Article 29(d) on the application for correction 

of certain names on the Official List of Family Group names (George C. 

Steyskal) 113 

Comment on proposal to suppress Pterodactylus crassipes Meyer, 1857 and 

counter-proposal to recognize Archaeopteryx lithographica Meyer, 1861, 

and to fix its type-species (Eugene Eisenmann) 114 

Comment on Schistodera Cobb, 1920 (Nematoda, Enoplida), a request for 

suppression; Oxystomina Filipjev, 1921 proposed for Official List (R. V. 

Melville) 115 

Comments on the proposed designation of a type-species for Cerithium 

Bruguiere, [1789] (Walter Cemohorsky) 116 

Comment on the proposal to place Leucospis gigas Fabricius, 1793 on the 

Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (B. D. Burks) 116 



© 1974. The Interna ronal Trust for Zooiooical' Nomenclature 
Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at The George Press, Kettering Northamptonshire 



Volume 31, Part 4 315/ December, 1974 

pp. 167-265, 2 pis., T.P. I-IX 



THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 



The OfiScial Organ of 

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 



Contents 

Page 
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: 

Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of 
Zoological Nomenclature .. .. .. .. 167 

Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature ofits plenary powers in certain cases .. .. .. 167 



(continued inside back wrapper) 



LONDON: 

Printed by Order of the International Trust for 

Zoological Nomenclature 

and 

Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological 

Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 

c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, 
London, SW7 5BD 

1974 

Price Three Pounds 

{All rights reserved) 



INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 

A. The Officers of the Commission 



President: Dr. W. D. L. Ride (^Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 

August 1963) 
Vice-President: Dr. L. B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The 

Netherlands) (28 August 1963) 
Secretary: Mr. R. V. Melville (cjo British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, 

London SW7 5BD) (30 January 1968) 

B. The Members of the Commission 

(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) 
Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Genova, Italy) (16 December 

19S4). Pisces; Echinodermata 
Professor Per Brinck (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958). 

Artbropoda, Ecology 
Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958). 

Opistbobranchia; Phylogeny 
Professor Dr. Raphael Alvarado (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Maturates, Madrid, Spain) 

(31 May 1960). Echlnoidea, Asteroidea 
Dr. E. G. MUNROE (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, 

Canada) (9 June 1961). Entomology, Zoogeography 
Professor E. Binder (Museum d'Histoire Nalurelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962). 

MoUusca 
Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, 

Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mollusca 
Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 

(28 August 1963) (Vice-President). Crustacea 
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Ornithology; Evolution 
Prof. Dr. Otto Kraus (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg, Germany) 

(28 August 1963) (Councillor). Arachnida, Myriapoda 
Dr. W. D. L. Ride (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia 6000) (28 August 

1963) (President). Mammalia; Recent and Fossil 
Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, 

U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor). Diptera; Systematics 
Professor George Gaylord Simpson (The Simroe Foundation, 5151 E. Holmes Street, Tucson, 

Arizona 85711, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963). Mammalia 
Dr. Eugene Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York 10024, 

U.S.A.) (30 January 1968). Ornithology 
Mr. R. V. Melville (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SWl 5BD) 

(30 January 1968) (Secretary). Palaeontology 
Dr. Y. I. Starobogatov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) 

(30 January 1968). Mollusca, Crustacea 
Professor F. M. Bayer (Institute of Marine Science, University of Miami, Florida 33149, U.S.A.) 

(20 February 1972). Octocorallia; Systematics 
Dr. John O. Corliss (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, U.S.A.) (20 

February 1 972). Protozoa ; Systematics 
Prof. Dr. H. K. Erben (Institut fiir Paldontologie, Universitdt Bonn, 53 Botvi, Germany) (20 

February 1 972). Invertebrate Palaeontology 
Professor T. Habe (National Science Museum, Ueno Park, Tokyo, Japan) (20 February 1972). 

Marine Biology 
Mr. David Heppell (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh 

EH\ \JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972). Mollusca 
Dr. I. W. B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SWl 5BD) (20 

February 1972). Lepidoptera 
Prof. A. Willink (Instituto Miguel Lillo, Tiicuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972). Neotropical 

Hymenoptera 
Prof. B. B. KoHDBNDORF (Palaeontohgical Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S.S.R.) 

(21 July 1972). Insecta Palaeontology 
Prof. G. Bernardi (Museum National d'Histoire Nalurelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). 

Lepidoptera 
Dr. C. Dupuis (Museum National d'Histoire Nalurelle, Paris, France) (28 September 1972). 

Diptera 



BUllETm OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMEMATIRE 



Volume 31, Part 4 (pp. 167-265, T.P. I-IX, Pis I & II) 31st December 1974 



NOTICES 

(a) Dale of Commencement of Voting. — In normal circumstances the 
Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any 
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present 
part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the 
Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the 
Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. 

(b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers. — The possible use by the Commission 
of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the 
present part of the Bulletin [those marked with an asterisk involve the appli- 
cation of Articles 23(a-b) and (79)b] : 

(I) Validation of Aglaja Renier, 1807, Aglaja depicta Renier, 1807 and 

Aglaja tricolorata Renier, 1807 (Mollusca, Opisthobranchia). Z.N.(S.) 

1092. 
*(2) Suppression of Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878 (Reptilia). Z.N.(S.) 

1746. 
*(3) Suppression of Parnalius Rafinesque, 1815 (Insecta, Rhopalocera) 

Z.N.(S.) 1884. 
*(4) Suppression of Calomicrus taeniatus Wollaston, 1867 (Insecta, 

Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2012. 
*(5) Suppression of Xiphidium glaberrimum Burmeister, 1 838 and Orchelimum 

cuticulare Audinet-Serville, 1838 (Insecta, Grylloptera). Z.N.(S.) 2060. 
(6) Designation of a type-species for Kerrichiella Rosanov, 1965 (Insecta, 

Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2063. 
*(7) Validation of Echis coloratus Giinther, 1878 (Reptilia, Serpentes). 

Z.N.(S.) 2064. 

(8) Suppression of Heterodera uriicae Pogosyan, 1962 (Nematoda) Z.N.(S.) 

2066. 

(9) Suppression of Thrips rufa Gmelin, 1790 (Insecta, Thysanoptera). 

Z.N.(S.) 2067. 
*(10) Suppression of Phloeotrogus Motschulsky, 1863 (Insecta, Coleoptera, 

SCOLYTIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2069. 
*(11) Suppression of Anodius Motschulsky, I860 (Insecta. Coleoptera, SCOL- 

YTIDAE). Z,N.(S.) 2070. 
*(12) Suppression of Leiparthrum Wollaston, 1854 (Insecta, Coleoptera, 

SCOLYTIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2071. 



168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

*(13) Suppression of Olonthogaster Motschulsky, 1866 (Insecta, Coleoptera, 

SCOLYTIDAE). Z.N.{S.) 2072. 
*(14) Suppression of Cardiuni boreale Broderip & Sowerby, 1829 (MoUusca: 

Bivalvia cardiidae). Z.N.(S.) 2073. 

(15) Suppression of Plvctolophus ducrops Bonaparte, 1850 (Aves). Z.N.(S.) 

2074. 

(16) Designation of type-species for Megasternum Mulsant, 1844 and 

Crvptopleurum Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, Coleoptera, hydrophilidae). 
Z.N.(S.) 2075. 

(17) Validation of Pseudoboa nigra (Dumeril Bibron and Dumcril, 1854) 

(Reptilia, Serpentes). Z.N.(S.) 2077. 

(18) Designation of type-species of Platvrhacus Koch, 1847 (Diplopoda). 

Z.N.(S.) 2078. 

(19) Rejection of all usages of thraupidae, prior to that of Wetmore & 

Miller (Aves). Z.N.(S.) 1980. 

(20) Striglina Guenee, 1877 to be given precedence over Daristane Walker, 

1859 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 2025. 

(21) Designation of Hydrophorus binotaius Fallen, 1823 as type-species of 

Hydrophorus Fallen, 1823. Z.N.(S.) 2036. 

(c) Withdrawn cases. — The following cases have been withdrawn recently 
with the authors' consent : 

UNPUBLISHED CASES 

(1) Sirex niger Harris, 1780 (Hymenoptera) : proposed neotype. 

(2) Ateleptera Dalman, 1823 (Insecta, Mecoptera): proposed addition to 

the Official Index as a nomen oblitum. Z.N.(S.) 1990. 

(3) Thripsaphis producta Gillette, 1917 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed 

designation of a lectotype under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2050. 

PUBLISHED CASES 

(1) Request for a Declaration against the suppression of nomina dubia. 

Z.N.(S.) 1715. {Bull.zool.Nomencl.22: 265-266) 

(2) Proposed rejection of Giraffa camelopardalis australis Rhoads, 1 896. 

Z.N.(S.) 1942. (Bull.2%: 100-101; see note 5»//.31: 171) 

(3) Expansion of Article ll(g)(i)(4) of the Code to include provision for 

adjectival genitives, the form of which is the same as the nominative. 
Z.N.(S.) 1969. (Bull.29: 135-136) 

(4) Cryphalus Erichson, 1836 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation 

of a type-species under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 1788. {Bull.29: 
121-122; see note 31: 171) 

(5) Code amendments for consideration at Monaco. Z.N.(S.) 1995. 

(5H//.29: 79-91) 

(6) Six proposed amendments to the Code for discussion at Monaco. 

Z.N.(S.) 2005. (Bull.29: 99-101) 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 169 

(d) Cliange of serial number: The application entitled "Phagocata cornuta 
Shishkov, 1903 (Platyhelminthes: Turbellaria): request for suppression under 
the plenary powers" has now been given the serial number Z.N.(S.) 2079. {Bull. 
31 : 62). 

The application entitled " Daclylopius Costa, 1835 and Pseudococcus 
Westwood, 1840 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed designation of type-species 
under the plenary powers with proposed suppression of Diaprosteci Costa, 
1828" has been given the serial number Z.N.(S.) 2091. {Bull. 31 : 146). 

c/o British Museum (Natural History), Margaret green 

Cromwell Road, Scientific Assistant 

London, SW7 5BD, England International Commission on 

August 1974 Zoological Nomenclature 



170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF PALVDINA 

LUSTRICA SAY, 1821. Z.N.(S.) 730 

(See volume 18, pages 146-148, 379) 

By Fred G. Thompson (Florida State Museum, Universilv of Florida, Gaiiies\illc, 

Florida, U.S.A.) 

The persistence of the name Paludina histrica Say, 1821 continues to pose serious 
problems in molluscan nomenclature. H. B. Baker, in his proposal to suppress 
Paludina histrica Say, Z.N.(S.) 730, gave a detailed history of the name Paludina 
histrica Say and the effects it would have on molluscan nomenclature if the name were 
retained as valid. 

Salient points in Baker's proposal are: 

(1) The name Paludina histrica Say, 1821 is a nomen diibium. Various attempts 
have been made to place it in four genera, viz. Lyogyrus Gill, 1863; Ainnicola Gould 
and Haldeman, 1841 ; Pomatiopsis Tryon, 1862; and Marstonia F. C. Baker, 1926. 

(2) Recognition of Paludina histrica Say as a valid name would make it the type 
species of Amnicoki Gould and Haldeman, 1840 by Haldeman's designation (July, 
1840; Monogr. Limn. N. Amer., 1 : 3 and inside back cover). Gould, 1841 {Rept. 
Invert. Mass.: 228-230) and Haldeman (1845, Monogr. Limn. N. Amer.: 8) recognized 
Ainnicola Gould and Haldeman from Gould, 1841. They included in the genus, 
Paludina porata Say, 1821 and Paludina limosa Say, 1817 and only dubiously included 
Paludina histrica Say, 1821. Hermannsen (1846, Indices Gen. Malacoz. Primordia, 
1 : 38) designated Paludina porata Say, 1821 as the type of Ainnicola. Most sub- 
sequent authors have accepted Herrmannsen's type designation. 

(3) Recognition of Paludina histrica Say as a valid name would make it the type 
species of Amiiicola by Haldeman's designation and would make Amnicola histrica 
(Say) a senior secondary homonym of Ainnicola histrica Pilsbry, 1890. Amnicola 
lustrica Pilsbry is the type species of Marstonia F. C. Baker, 1926, a genus distinct 
from Amnicola and in a different subfamily. Marstonia lustrica (Pilsbry) is a well 
known species widely distributed in north central North America. Nomenclatural 
stability is desirable. 

Separately, Taylor and Gregg {Bull. Zool. Nomencl, 18 : 379) opposed suppres- 
sion of the name Paludina lustrica Say on the basis that Taylor (Taylor, D. W., 1960; 
Late Cenozoic molluscan faunas from the High Plains: U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 
337 : 49-50) believes Say's species to be a senior synonym of Amnicola walkeri Pilsbry, 
1898. Taylor contends that Say's description of Paludina histrica is detailed enough 
to identify it with Amnicola walkeri Pilsbry. E. G. Berry (1943; Misc. Pub. Mus. 
Zool. Univ. Michigan, no. 57 : 26) demonstrates on the basis of reproductive anatomy 
that Amnicola walkeri Pilsbry is related to Paludina limosa Say, 1817 (presently con- 
sidered a senior subjective synonym of Paludina porata Say, 1821), the generally 
accepted type species of Amnicola. Taylor and Gregg argue that recognition of 
Paludina lustrica Say as the type species of Amnicola would not result in a change in 
our concept of the genus. Since then new data supporting the proposal by Baker 
have come to light. 

(A) Paludina lustrica Say is a nomen diibium. The identity of the name Paludina 
lustrica Say is not unequivocal as Taylor (1960) contends. Within the family Hydro- 
biidae, with v,'hich Paludina lustrica Say is placed, details of the embryonic whorls, 
including their diameter and sculpture, are essential for proper generic allocations. 
Such data are not available in Say's description (1821; Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila- 
delphia, 2 : 75). Furthermore the type oi Paludina lustrica Say, 1821 is lost (Baker, 
H. B., 1964; Pioc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 116 : 174). Designation of a neotype for 
Paludina histrica Say would not in the least serve the interests of molluscan syste- 
matics and nomenclature. 

(B) Amnicola walkeri Pilsbry is a species oi Lyogyrus Gill, 1863, not Amnicola as 
was previously supposed (see Thompson, F. G., 1968; The Aquatic Snails of the 

Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



Bulktii! of Zoological Nomenclalure 171 

Family Hydrobiidae of Peninsular Florida; Univ. Florida Press: 162-163). The generic 
name Lyogynis has remained in common use since its inception. Recognition of 
Paliidina liislrica Say as a valid name would (1) make Lyogyrus a junior subjective 
synonym of Ainnicola. (2) it would completely alter our concept of the species com- 
position of Amiiicola, (3) it would leave Paliidina porata Say and allied species without 
an available generic name, and a new name would have to be proposed for this group, 
and (4) a name change for Marslonia liistrica (Pilsbry) (= Amnicola histrica Pilsbry) 
would still be necessary. 

The si.\ requests made by Baker to the International Commission, Z.N.(S.) 730, 
are still valid and have additional supportive evidence (paragraph 9, subparagraphs 
1-6). I recommend that the International Commission act in favour on Baker's 
proposal. Such action will be the only course that will result in nomenclatural 
stability with regard to this problem. 

PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A 

TYPE-SPECIES FOR CRYPHALUS ERICHSON, 1836 (INSECTA, 

COLEOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1788 

By Stephen L. Wood {Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, U.S.A.) 

This application is withdrawn because a re-examination by the proposer of the 
syntypes of C. asperatiis (Gyllenhal, 1813) showed them to be conspecific with the 
synlypes of Boslrichiis (Cryphaliis) abietis Ratzeburg, 1839. The latter name which 
has been used for a long time as the valid name of a species of Cryphaliis, therefore 
falls as a junior subjective synonym of C. asperatiis and stability will be achieved by 
applying the Law of Priority. Usage of Trypophoeiis Fairmaire, 1868 (type-species, 
by monotypy, Bostriclnis (Cryphaliis) binodiiliis Ratzeburg, 1836) is also maintained 
by this means. 

WITHDRAWAL OF Z.N.(S.) 1942: THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF 
GIRAFFA CAMELOPARDALIS AUSTRALIS RHOADS, 1896 (MAMMALL^) 

By R. V. Melville (Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 

The applicants in this case (Ansell and Dagg, 1971, Bull. zool. NomencL, 28 : 100- 
101) sought the suppression of Giraffa camelopardalis australis Rhoads, 1896, on the 
grounds that it was a senior synonym of Giraffa camelopardalis reticulata de Winton, 
1899. This latter name has been protected from the threat presented to its stability 
by the senior homonym Camelopardalis giraffa var. reticulata Weinland, 1863, by the 
use of the plenary powers in Opinion 944 (1971, Bull. zool. NomencL, 27 ; 222-223) 
and placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The main purpose of the 
application was to safeguard the name reticulata de Winton, 1899 for the reticulated 
giraffe and therefore as this has been done the applicants agree to withdraw the 
proposal. 

THRAUPIDAE (AVES): COMMENT ON PROPOSALS. Z.N.(S.) 1976 

By H. Lemche (Universitetets zoologiske Museum, Danmark) 

Changing the items on the Official Lists and Indexes is a most serious action, 
as the whole authority of these lists depends on their reliability (or stability). When 
you look up a certain item to have safe information on its nomenclatorial status, 
you expect to obtain the correct answer from the list. In the last years, I have con- 
sidered this problem again and again and am becoming more and more convinced 
that we must keep the lists stable by all possible means, first and foremost by stating 
under the plenary powers that priority cannot be claimed to upset an entry or to 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

change any of the particulars concerning an entry. I therefore strongly urge my 
fellow-Commissioners to vote for the Alternative B which I give below, in the case 
of THRAUPiDAE, thereby expressly giving that name final stability. 

Alternative A: 

(1) to correct entry 428 thraupidae on the Official List of Family-Group Names 
in Zoology by substituting the given authors and date 'Wetmore & Miller, 1926' 
by the older reference (ex thraupinae) Cabanis, 1847', 

the remainder of the proposals to be left unaltered, 
or 

Alternative B: 

(1) Under the plenary powers to reject all earlier usages of the name thraupidae 
(or THRAUPINAE) before that of Wetmore & Miller, 1926, 

the remainder of the proposals to be left unaltered. 

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS THE SPECIFIC 
NAME PAYTENSIS LESSON, 1837 (AVES). Z.N.(S.) 1980 

By R. V. Melville (Secretary, International Cofnmission on Zoological Nomenclature) 

This application by Dr. Charles Vaurie seeks the suppression for the purposes of 
the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, ofpaytensis (Anthiis), 
Lesson, 1837, so as to preserve a name, Ceositta paylae Menegaux and Hellmayr, 
1906. In fact, if the Law of Priority were applied, the Furnariid generally known as 
Geositta peruviana Lafresnaye, 1847, paytae Menegaux and Hellmayr, 1906 would 
become known as Geositta paytensis (Lesson, 1837), peruviana Lafresnaye, 1847. 
The application is supported by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomen- 
clature of the International Ornithological Congress. 

The case is not a simple matter of suppressing an overlooked senior synonym, 
because the combination Geositta paytensis (Lesson, 1837) has been used three times 
by one author in the last twenty years. During this period, the combination Geositta 
peruviana Lafresnaye, 1847, paytae Menegaux and Hellmayr has been used twice by 
one author, according to Dr. Vaurie's application. 

In the circumstances, the Commission requires more evidence of the predominant 
current use of one name in preference to the other, and of the extent of disturbance 
to stability of nomenclature that would be caused by applying the Law of Priority 
than it now has, before it can decide whether or not to use its plenary powers in 
this case. 

CHANGE IN THE PROPOSALS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF 
PHAROPTERYX BENOIT RtJPPELh, 1852 (PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 1981 (See 
vol.29 : 39-40; 30 : 140-141) 

By E. Tortonese (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Genova, Italy) 

I should like the Commission to consider the following proposals when they vote 
on the application on Pharopleryx benoit Rijppel, 1 852. 

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name kleinenbergi Giglioli, 

1889, as published in the binomen Eretmoplwrus kleinenbergi is to be given 
precedence over the unused senior synonym benoit Ruppell, 1852, as published 
in the binomen Pharopteryx benoit, by any zoologist who considers that the 
two names refer to the same species-group taxon; 

(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : 

(a) kleinenbergi Giglioli, 1889, as published in the binomen Eretmophorus 
kleinenbergi, with the endorsement that this name is to be given priority 
over Pharopteryx benoit Ruppell, 1852, by any zoologist who considers 
that the two names refer to the same species-group taxon ; 

Bull. zool. Nomenci, Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature i 73 

(h)bciwjl Riippell, 1852, as published in the binomen Pliaropleryx beiwit, 
with the endorsement that this name is not to be used in preference to 
kkiiieiibeigi Giglioli, 1889 by any zoologist who considers that the 
two names refer to the same species-group taxon. 

COMMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL ON THE CONSERVATION 

OF STRIGLINA GUENEE, 1877. Z.N.(S.) 2025 

(See volume 30, pages 61-62) 

By P. E. S. Whalley (British Museum (Natural History), London SWl SBD) 

Dr. I. W. B. Nye has shown me his comments (1974, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 30 : 
140-141) on the above case. The object of my application as summarized in the title 
is to conserve the generic name Striglina Guenee, 1877. Whether it is preferable 
to do this by placing Striglina on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, 
thereby giving it precedence now and in the future over all other names for this taxon; 
or whether it is preferable to place its unused senior subjective synonym Daristane 
Walker, 1859, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, 
is an important technicality on which the Commission should provide guidance for 
this and similar cases. 

In addition, my original proposals were incomplete since they did not provide for 
the placing of Striglina on the Official List. They should therefore be completed 
by adding: 

(3) to place the generic name Striglina Guenee, 1877 (gender: feminine), type- 

species, by subsequent designation by Whalley, 1964, Striglina lineola 
Guenee, 1877, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; 

(4) place the specific name scitaria Walker, 1862,' as published in the binomen 

Drepanodes scitaria, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 
Pending the resolution by the Commission of the general point mentioned above, 
I therefore now put forward two alternative proposals: either (A) my original pro- 
posals as expanded herein; or (B): 

(1) to rule under the plenary powers that the generic name Striglina Guenee, 
1877, is to be given precedence over the generic name Daristane Walker, 1859, 
by any zoologist who considers those names to apply to a single genus; 
(2), (3), consequential Official List action for Striglina and its type-species, as under 
(A); repeating the endorsement under (1); 

(4) to place the generic name Daristane Walker, 1859 (gender: feminine), type- 

species, by monotypy, Daristane tibiaria Walker, 1859, on the Official List 
of Generic Names in Zoology with an endorsement that it is not to be used 
to displace Striglina Guenee, 1877; 

(5) to place the specific name tibiaria Walker, 1859, as published in the binomen 

Daristane tibiaria, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

COMMENTS ON AND ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL FOR THE 

PROPOSAL (Z.N.(S.) 2036) TO CONSERVE HYDROPHORUS FALLEN 

AND TO SUPPRESS THE DESIGNATION BY MACQUART OF 

HYDROPHORUS JACULUS FALLEN AS TYPE SPECIES 

By John A. Hendrickson, Jr. and Selwyn S. Roback (Department of Limnology, 
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa., 19103, U.S.A.) 

INTRODUCTION 
We agree with Steyskal, ct al. (1973) that it is in the interest of taxonomic clarity 

1 Walker, P., 1862, List of specimens of lepidopterous Insects in the collection of the British 
Museum, vol. 26, p. 1488. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

and continuity to suppress all previous designations of a type species for Hydrophorus 
Fallen and to conserve Hydrophorus Fallen with one of the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th of the 
originally included species as the type species. We disagree with that proposal in 
doubting the applicability of Article 70(a) of the Code and in following an earlier 
suggestion that Hydrophorus binotatus Fallen, 1823 be designated as the type species. 
We present further evidence which clarifies the history of the applications of the 
name Hydrophorus Fallen. Finally, we present an alternative request for action by 
the Commission, including application for action under the plenary powers alone. 

IDENTITY OF THE TYPE SPECIES 

Meigen (1824) was the first compiler and reviser to use the work of Fischer (1819), 
Lehmann (1822) and Fallen (1823). Macquart (1827) could have (on the basis of 
included species, spellings, descriptions, and bibliographic citations) worked solely 
from Meigen (1824) with no reference to work by Fischer, Lehmann and Fallen. 

Meigen (1824) did not indicate by name a type species for Medeterus Fischer, 
(for ease in citing historic usage, we use the spelling provided by Meigen, rather than 
Medetera, which is the correct name) nor did he indicate that Fischer's genus was 
monotypic, nor did he provide Fischer's specific name for the species Fischer described 
and illustrated. Meigen listed A/, regius (Fabr.) [A4usca] (with a dorsal arista) first 
in his treatment of Medeterus and provided two illustrations of that species (of six 
illustrations for the genus). (Two other illustrations are of antennae of unnamed 
species, and both have the arista distinctly dorsal. A fifth illustration is of M. iiotatus 
(Fabr.) [Musca], which also has the arista dorsal. The remaining illustration of a 
frontal view of the head of an unnamed species is consistent with modern species 
having the arista dorsal). Macquart (1827) placed 12 species from Meigen (1824) 
in the genera Hydrophorus and Medeterus; of these, 9 have the arista dorsal. Finally, 
Macquart (1827 and 1834) listed H.jaculus first in Hydrophorus and M. regius first in 
Medeterus. 

Thus Macquart's separation of Hydrophorus (with arista apical) based on Hydro- 
phorus jaculus Fallen was reasonable if he assumed (as seems likely) that Medeterus 
regius (Fabr.) was the type species of Medeterus Fischer. Two additional lines of 
evidence (a and b) corroborate this view. 

(a) Macquart (1827) assigned 4 species to Hydrophorus, three of which clearly 
have the arista apical (see below under designation of a new type species), and he 
assigned 16 species to Medeterus, 15 of which have the arista dorsal. There are no 
citations of specimens determined by Macquart (1827) as H. jaculus which have 
subsequently been listed in the synonymies of species with the arista dorsal (fide 
Kertesz, 1909, Lundbeck, 1912, Parent, 1938). 

(b) Macquart (1834) continued to use the same states of the same character to 
separate the genera Hydrophorus and Medeterus. Meigen (1 838) noted the variation 
of arista placement, but regarded Hydrophorus as a weak segregate of Medeterus. 
Zetterstedt (1840, et seq.) treated Medeterus as a subgenus of Hydrophorus, although 
(1843 : 448, footnote 1) he bemoans the fact that if the latter genus were split, the 
name Hydrophorus would go to wholly terrestrial species, while it would be an apt 
name for the species frequenting water (the "modern" concept). 

The foregoing strongly suggest that Macquart did not misidentify the material he 
regarded as belonging to Hydrophorus jaculus. Therefore, application of Article 
70(a) is inappropriate. 

ORIGIN AND STABILITY OF THE "MODERN CONCEPT " OF 
HYDROPHORUS 
The next 15 years of literature (1844-1858) show various uses of the two generic 
names, Hydrophorus and Medeterus. Wahlberg (1844) is given credit (Haliday, 
1851, Steyskal, et ah, 1973) for the first use of Hydrophorus in the modern concept; 
however his descriptions of two new species (one in Hydrophorus, one in Medeterus) 
make no mention of the placement of the arista. Haliday (1851) cites Wahlberg 
(1844) as the source of his concept of Hydrophorus as having the arista dorsal. Loew 



Biillciin of Zoological Nomenclature 175 

(1857) follows (Haliday (1851) in) Walker as the source of" his concept o{ Hydrophonis, 
from which he segregates two new genera. Loew seems to have recognized (1857) 
that Medelerus Fischer had been monotypic. Walker (1858), following either Mac- 
quart, Meigen, Zetterstedt, or Walker (1849) described two new species, (now in the 
hydrophorinae) with dorsal aristas in Medeleriis. Perris (1849 or 1850) segregated 
a new genus, Aplirozcla, with two included species, both new, from Medeterus (sensii 
Macquart and Meigen), and the arista is dorsal in this genus. 

In general, Loew (1857) has been followed by most subsequent entomological 
authors. We ofTer three brief quotes to suggest the tenacity of modern dipterists in 
applying Loew's concept of Hydrophorus. 

Aldrich (1911) notes, "The genus Hydrophorus, established by Fallen in 1823, 
as limited by Loew in 1857, as generally used since and as herein understood, com- 
prises those flies . . .". 

Collin (1940 : 268) says of Hydrophorus Fin., "This well-known name is in danger 
of suppression .... One cannot under these circumstances too strongly urge that the 
Zoological Commission be requested to place Hydrophorus Fin. with type H. binotatus 
Fin. (= bipunclatus Lehm.) on the reserved list of generic names". 

Cole (1969 : 279) stales, ". . . Coquillett . . . stated Hydrophorus of authors equals 
Aphrozela Perris (1850). We do not accept this interpretation but follow Aldrich, 
Becker, and others". 

Further, the most commonly used key for the identification of immature aquatic 
stages of dipterans (Johannsen, 1935) provides the determination "Hydrophorus 
agabna" in one of the few couplets within the dolichopodidae. Perhaps not all 
specimens determined as such are indeed in Hydrophorus, but the name is in general 
use by aquatic entomologists. 

DESIGNATION OF A NEW TYPE SPECIES 

If the plenary powers are applied to suppress Macquart's designation of Hydro- 
phorus jacuhis Fallen, 1823 as the type species of Hydrophorus Fallen (and all other 
designations prior to such a ruling), only three originally included species seem to be 
suitable candidates for such designation: H. binotatus Fallen, 1823, H. litoreus Fallen, 
1823 and H. iiebulosus Fallen, 1823. Steyskal, el al. (1973) suggest H. nebulosus 
Fallen, as being a distinctive species subject to no prior taxonomic confusion. How- 
ever, at least two authors (Macquart (1837, 1834) and Neuhaus (1886)) seem to have 
regarded the arista as (sub ?) apical in this species. Moreover, among western 
European species, H. nebulosus seems to be aberrant in both the length of the third 
antennal segment and the pattern of wing spotting (Lundbeck, 1912, and Parent, 
1938). Choice of an aberrant species would seem to be inconsistent with future 
stability of the generic name. 

The name H. litoreus Fallen and its junior subjective synonyms have bean applied 
at various times to several modern species. This does not conform to the recom- 
mendation of an easily recognizable type species. 

Collin (1940) suggested H. biuotatus Fallen for designation as the type species of 
Hydrophorus Fallen. This species (long regarded as a junior subjective synonym of 
Hydrophorus bipunclatus (Lehmann, 1822) [Dolichopus]) seems to be representative of 
several European species, and would thus be a suitable type species for future stability. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Therefore, in the interests of stability in nomenclature, the commission is requested: 

(1) to disallow application of Article 70(a) of the code as requested in proposal 

Z.N.(S.) 2036 because there is no evidence supporting the claim of a mis- 
identified type species; 

(2) to use its plenary powers to suppress all designations of type species for Hydro- 

phorus Fallen, 1823 made prior to the requested ruling and to designate 
Hydrophorus binotatus Fallen, 1823 as the type species of the said genus; 

(3) to place the generic name Hydrophorus Fallen, 1823 (gender masculine), type 

species, by designation under the plenary powers in (2) above, Hydrophorus 
binotatus Fallen, 1823 on the Official List of Generic Names on Zoology; 



176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

(4) to place the specific name bipi/nclaliis Lciimann, 1822 as published in the 

binomen Dolichopus bipuiiclatiis on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology; 

(5) to place the subfamily name* hydrophorinae Lioy, 1864 on the Official List 

of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 

References 
Aldrich, J. M. 1911. A revision of the North American species of the dipterous 

genus Hyclrophorus. Psyche 18 : 45-70, 1 pi. 
Cole, F. R. 1969. The flies of Western North America, xii+693 pp., Univ. Calif. 

Press, Berkeley 
Collin, J. E. 1940. Critical notes on some recent synonymy aflfecting British 

species of Dolichopodidae (Diptera). Entomol. Man. Mag. 76 : 261-271 
Fallen, C. F. 1823. Monographia Dolichopodiini Sveciae. 22 pp., Lundae. 
Fischer [de Waldheim], G. 1819. Notice sur une mouche carnivore, nomme 

Medetere. Progr. Soc. imp. Natural (Moscou) 15 Dec. 1819 : 5-11, 1 pi. 
Haliday, A. H. 1851. Family XXL Dolichopidae. In Wdlksr, ¥., et al., Insecta 

Brittanica. Vol. 1 (= Diptera, Vol. 1): 144-221. London 
JOHANNSEN, O. A. 1935. Aquatic Diptera. Part IL Orthorrhapha-Brachycera 

and Cyclorrhapha. N. Y. (Cornell) Agr. Expt. Sta. Mem. 164 : 1-71, 24 pis. 
Kertesz, C. 1909. Catalogus dipterorum hiiciisqne deseriptorwn. VL Empididae, 

Dolichopodidae, Musidoridae. 362 pp., Budapestini 
Lehmann, J. G. C. 1822. Observationes zoologicae praesertini in fauitam Ham- 

biirgensem. Pugillus primus. 53 pp., Hamburgi 
LoEW, N. 1857. Neue Beitrage Zur Kenntniss der Dipteren. iter Beitrag. Progr. 

Mereritz: 1-56 
Lundbeck, W. 1912. Diptera Danica, Part IV. Dolichopodidae. 416 pp. 

Copenhagen 
Macquart, J. 1 827. Insectes dipleres du nord de la France. Platypezines, Dolicho- 

podes, Empides, Hybotides. 159 pp., Lille 

1834. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Dipleres. Tome Premier. 578 pp. 

and 12 pis., Paris 

Meigen, J. W. 1824. Systematische Beschreibiing der bekannten eiiropdischen 
zweiftiigeligen Insekten Vol. 4, xii + 428 pp., pis. 33-41, Hamn 

1838. Idem. vol. 7, xii + 434 pp. and pis. 67-74, Hamn 

Neuhaus, G. H. 1886. Diptera Marchica. Systematisches Verzeichniss der 
ZweiflUger (Mucken und Fliegen) der Mark Brandenburg, mit kurzer Beschrei- 
bung und analytischen Bestimmungs-Tabellen. pp. IV + 371, Berlin 

Parent, O. 1938. Fanne de France. 35. Dipteres Dolichopodidae. 720 pp. 
Paris 

Perris, E. 1849 or 1850. Lettre de M. Edouard Perris a M.'^^'^ sur une excursion 
dans les grandes landes. Mem. Acad. Sci. Lyon (Sect. Sci.) 2 : 433-506 

* In proposal (4) Bull. zool. Nonieiicl. 30 ; 119, the applicants requested that hydrophorinae 
Lioy, 1864 or Schiner, 1864 be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 
Further investigation has revealed that Lioy's paper was published a few months earlier 
than Schiner's. 

In I'crh. k-k. zool. bol. Gcsell. Wien 14 1864 : 61 a meeting of 5th October 1864 is reported 
with a note saying that Schiner's Catalogue is now available. On p. 44 (lorn. cir.)at a meeting 
of 1st June 1864, notice was given that the Catalogue had been printed and that members 
would be informed when it had been published. Therefore the Catalogue must have been 
published between ist June and 5th October 1864, and unless proved to the contrary the 
date of publication will be considered to be October 1864. 

On the other hand Lioy cannot be dated later than 31st July 1864 (Atti Soc. Hal. Sci. not 6 
1864 : 391), where Aiii dell' I.R. Insliluto Vencto ecc. Serie III Tomo IX Dispensa 4, 5, 6 
and 7 are listed among those books received by the Society between June and July 1864. 

M.A.G. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomeiiclaltirc 177 

Stcyskal, G. C, Robinson, H., Ulrich, H., & Hurley, R. L. 1973. Hydrophonis 
Fallen, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera, Dolichopodidae): Request for suppression 
under the plenary powers of the designation by Macquart, 1827 of H. jaciihis 
Fallen as type of the genus in favour of H. iicbiilosiis Fallen in order to con- 
serve consistent usage. Z.N.fS.) 2036. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 30 : 118-120 

Wahlbero, p. p. 1844. Nya Diptera fran Norbotten och Lulea Lappmark. 
Ofvers. Vctensk-Akad. Fiirlmmll. (Stockholm) 1 : 106-110 

Walker, F. 1 848-1 849. List of the Dipterous insects in the British Museum. Parts 
I-IV, with index to the four parts, pp. IV + 1172, London 

1858. Insecta Saundersiana. Vol. I. Diptera. 474 pp. and 8 pis., London 

Zetterstedt, J. W. 1840. Insecta Lappoiiica. VI h 1140 cols., Lipsiae 

1843. Diptera Scandinaviae. Vol. 2, pp. 441-894 

1849. We/H., vol. 8, pp. 2935-3366 

1852. Idem., vol. 11, pp. I-XII + 4091^545 

1855. Idem., vol. 12, pp. I-XX + 4547-4942 

1859. Idem., vol. 13, pp. I-XVI + 4943-6190 

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE SUPPRESSION 

OF THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME PLATYCHOEROPIDAE. Z.N.(S.) 2052 

(See volume 30, pages 207-209) 

By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksimiseum van Natuurlijl<e Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) 

I would like to point to an error in Dr. Gingerich's application, an error I must 
say rather often made. On p. 208 the applicant requested the Commission to suppress 
the family name platychoeropidae [par. 7(1)], but to place the generic name Platy- 
choerops on the Official List of Generic Names [par. 7(4)(b)]. It is impossible for 
the Commission to suppress a family name when it does not suppress at the same 
time the name of the genus on which that family is based. As long as Platychoerops 
is an available name it must remain possible to base a family name on it. What 
name should an author, who considers Platychoerops as the only genus in a mono- 
typic family, use for that family if platychoeropidae is suppressed? 

In the present case the applicant should request to place both platychoeropidae 
and plesiadapidae on the Official List with the annotation that zoologists considering 
that these two names are synonymous should use plesiadapidae in preference to 

PLATYCHOEROPIDAE. 

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED 

CONSERVATION OF THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME PLATYSTOMATIDAE 

SCHINER, 1862. Z.N.(S.) 2053 

(See volume 31, pages 59-61) 

By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) 

At the risk of becoming monotonous, I have to point out that a family-group 
name cannot be suppressed by the Commission as long as the name of its type-genus 
is still an available name, not a junior homonym. 

The Commission therefore cannot suppress the family name achiidae (as requested 
by Steyskal and McAlpinein paragraph 4(1) of their application) unless it also suppres- 
sed the available name Achias Fabricius, 1805. 

The proper action to be taken is to place both achiidae and platystomatidae 
on the Official List with the indication that authors who consider the genera Achias 
Fabricius, 1805 and Platystoma Meigen, 1803, to belong to one family, should give 
the family group name platystomatidae (emendation of platystominae) Schiner, 
1862, preference over achiidae (emendation of achiasidae) Fleming, 1821. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



178 Bullelin of Zoological Nomenclature 

COMMENT ON -'Gen.n., sp.n." AFTER 1930, AVAILABILITY OF THE 

GENERIC NAME. Z.N.(S.) 2054 

(See volume 30, pages 210-216) 

By L. B. Hollhuis (Rijksniiiseiini van Natiiiirlijke Histoiie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 

The gen.n., sp.n., problem has been very clearly dealt with by Sabrosky (1974, 
Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 30 (3/4): 210-216). Still I feel that I have to strongly disagree 
with his views. 

Ideally the publication of a new taxon should give a diagnosis and its description. 
The definition of diagnosis and description being the following: a diagnosis indicates 
the characters in which the taxon differs from the other taxa of equal rank that belong 
with the new taxon to the same next higher taxon (i.e. in case of a genus, the differences 
from all other genera of the same family or subfamily); a description indicates those 
characters that all the subordinate taxa forming the new taxon have in common 
(i.e. in case of a genus, the characters which all the species placed in the genus share 
with each other). 

In the case of a new genus based on a single new species, a diagnosis of the genus 
can be given, but not of the species, as there are no other species in the genus with 
which to compare it, and the description of the genus is identical to the description 
of the species. The only thing that an author in good faith can do in thess circum- 
stances is to give one description, and indicate in which characters his new genus 
differs from other genera in the same family or subfamily. As long as only a single 
species is known in the genus he cannot indicate which characters are generic and 
which specific. Of course, through comparison with related genera he can guess 
which characters might be of generic value and which of specific, but this rests entirely 
on a surmise, although through long experience in the group, he might come close to 
the truth. Therefore it would be wholly unjust and even unscientific that an author 
describing a new genus with a single (new) species he forced \.o indicate the characters 
of the new genus taxon and those of the new species taxon separately. 

If he describes his new genus and indicates the characters which distinguish this 
genus from all other genera in the family, he has at the same time given the characters 
which distinguish the single (new) species in his genus from all other species in the 
family, and thus in my opinion he fulfils the requirements of Article 13 completely: 
as both the generic and specific names are then "accompanied by a statement that 
purports to give characters differentiating the taxon". That this "statement" is the 
same for both the genus and the species does not make the least difference. 

A recent example may be used to illustrate the problem. In 1973 Chace & 
Manning (Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 131 : 6-14) described Procaris ascensionis new 
species, being the sole species of Procaris new genus, being the sole genus of procari- 
DiDAE new family, being the sole family in the procaridoidea new superfamily. 
Chace & Manning duly diagnosed their new superfamily, family, genus and species, 
so that in Sabrosky's view they were correct. I wonder, however, whether it is strictly 
possible to give in a case like this any definition of the taxa between superfamily and 
species that is based on more than a guess, taxonomic feeling, or intuition. One 
can definitely produce a diagnosis (in the above sense) of the superfamily, disting- 
uishing it from all other superfamilies of the infraorder Caridea, but neither for the 
family, nor for the genus, or species a diagnosis can be given and the description for 
all 4 taxa is identical. 

Therefore I would strongly urge not to change the Rules here and not to outlaw a 
single description for new genus new species, provided that only a single species is 
described in the new genus when the latter is first published. 



Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomcmlature 179 

DIRECTION 106 

CORRECTION OF THE ENTRY IN OPINION 972, REFERRING 

TO THE AUTHOR OF THE SPECIFIC NAME SAPORTAE 

WHICH WAS PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED 

AND INVALID SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY, WITH 

THE NAME NUMBER 969 

RULING. — The entry relating to Name Number 969 on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, is hereby corrected to read 
saportae, Papilio, Geyer //; Hiibncr & Geyer [1828-1832] (nee HLibner). 

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1875) 

The name Papilio saportae Hiibner, [1828-1832] was placed on the Official 
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name 
Number 969, in Opinion 972, which was published on 31 December 1971 in 
Bull. zool. Nomemi. 28 : 147. 

Lieut. Col. C. F. Cowan drew the Commission's attention to the fact that 
Geyer was the author of this specific name and not Hiibner. In a letter dated 
23 February 1973 he wrote that "'Hemming, 1937, I : 189, among other places 
in Hiibner, a bibliographical and systemalic account 2 vols: 1, ftsp., xxxiv, 605 pp., 
2, ix-xi, 274 pp., London) has shown that plates 182 onwards of Hubner's 
Samnil. europ. Schmelt. were published by Geyer, not Hiibner, the latter having 
died in September 1826. He also showed (I : 235) that of the eight Papiliones 
plates published between April 1828 and 19 July, 1832, Plate 188, on which 
P. saportae was figured and validly named, was the first to appear. 

"Hemming further showed (2 : 138) that Geyer recorded in manuscript 
that the locality of P. saportae was Provence. 

"Boisduval (Nov. 1828 : 13) named Polyommatus melanops from specimens 
taken near Aix by the Comte Adolphe de Saporta. De Saporta lived at Aix 
en Provence (Bouches-du-Rhone) near his father-in-law Baron Boyer de Fons- 
colombe, and both were keen collectors. It is thus highly probable that the 
holotypes oi Papilio saportae Geyer (which under Article 31 of 1961, cancelled 
by the 1964 Code, would automatically have been corrected to "saportai") 
and of Polyommatus melanops Boisduval came from the same series and were 
distributed by the Count. This explains both the subjective synonymy and the 
near-simultaneous publication. 

"The suppression of the name Papilio saportae was necessary but it should 
be attributed to Geyer, not Hiibner. I much regret that this fact was not 
noted sooner". 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 
On 22 November 1973, the Members of the Commission were invited to 
vote under the One-Month Rule on Voting Paper (O.M.) (73)3, either for or 
against correcting the author of the Official Index entry for the specific name 
saportae. Name Number 969 from Hiibner to Geyer. At the close of the Voting 
Period on 22 December 1973, the state of the voting was as follows: 

Bull, zool Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



180 Bullet in of Zoological Nomenclature 

Affirmative votes — nineteen (19): Dupuis, Erben, Yokes, Melville, Mayr, 
Eisenmann, Alvarado, Lemche, Heppell, Sabrosky, Binder, Habe, Rohdendorf, 
Bayer, Bernard!, Tortonese, Jaczewski, Willink, Nye. 

Negative votes — one (1): Holthuis. 

Voting Papers not returned — four (4): Binder, Ride, Simpson, Starobogatov. 

Prof. Brinck, Dr. Kraus and Dr. Corliss returned late affirmative votes. 

In returning their voting papers, the following comments were made by 
Commissioners: 

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (29.xi.73): "This is to explain my negative vote on this 
question. The fact that Geyer published Hiibner's work after the death of the 
latter does not make him automatically the author of the new species described 
and figured in the posthumous part of Hiibner's work. 

"That pi. 188 which shows Papilio saportae was made by Hiibner and not 
by Geyer is also shown by the fact that the plates up to pi. 181 had been pub- 
lished by Hiibner when he died in September 1826. In 1827 Geyer (see 
Hemming, 1937, Hiibner, vol. 2, p. 29) stated that after Hiibner's death he 
had come to the possession of Hiibner's 'gesammten Kupferplattenvorraths . . . 
welch zum Besten dieser Wissenschaft anzuwenden, ich gewiss nicht unterlassen 
werde'. It seems likely therefore that Hiibner had already finished pi. 188 
before his death, so that he is responsible for it and should be cited as the 
author of the new species shown on it". 

Dr. E. Mayr (26.xi.73): "I vote for the proposals provided that it is clear 
that Geyer 'was alone responsible both for the name and the conditions that 
make it available' (Art. 50) and did not merely publish Hiibner's manuscript". 

Lt. Col. C. F. Cowan was asked if he could provide more information on 
the authorship of the name and replied in the following way: 

Lt. Col. C. F. Cowan (2l.iii.74): "Article 50 says 'The author of a name is 
the person who first publishes it [Geyer], unless it is clear from the contents 
of the pubhcation that some other person is alone responsible both for the 
name and for the conditions that make it available'. 

"Geyer published the name, 18 months or more, and in the second batch of 
plates after Hiibner died. Nothing in the publication says that Hiibner alone 
was responsible either for the name or for the publication, let alone both. 

"After Hiibner's death Geyer published six plates in this Samnil. europ. 
Schmctt. in 1827— April 1827 (see Hemming, 1937, Hiibner vol. 1, p. 189, 
para. 144), plus at least five plates in his Gcschichte europ. Schmett. (id. p. 100, 
para. 43), and thirteen plates in the Saniml. e.xot. Schmett. during 1827 (id. 
p. 348, para. 58). These are the plates issued under the sale notice cited in 
your letter. Despite the Code I would sympathise with Hiibner and with 
anyone wishing to credit him with any of these 24 plates, but surely not more. 
And "Hiibner, 1832" does look so odd! 

"All subsequent issues, including the Papilio saportae plate, appeared under 
the — Hiibner, continued by Geyer heading, and cannot be dated before 1832 
(/rf. vol. 2, pp. 31, 32)". 

Dr. Holthuis (in reply to this information, I9.iv.74): "I had the impression 
that Hiibner was the author of 'Sammlung europaischer Schmetterlinge' and 
that only external evidence showed that Geyer had published a number of 



i 



Bulletin of Zoological Noincuclalwe 181 

plates after HUbner's death, while as Dr. Mayr pointed out there is the possibility 
that the plates were finished by Hlibner before his death, and just published by 
Geyer, who was the publisher of Hiibner's works anyhow. It would be as if 
in a posthumous work one had to cite the publishing firm as the author. 

'"Unfortunately I do not have a copy of Hiibner's publication available 
here, but I spent a lot of time with Hemming's book on Hlibner. There I saw 
(Vol. 1, p. 167, para. 67) that the wrappers of the later numbers of the publication 
had the title 'Sammlung europiiischer Schmetterlinge errichtet von Jacob 
Hubner, fortgesetzt von Carl Geyer'. Geyer thus has been mentioned as 
author in the book itself. Therefore I retract my objection and agree that 
Papilio saportae Geyer (or actually Geyer in Htibner & Geyer) should be placed 
on the Official Index". 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (O.M.) (73X3) were cast as 
set out above, that the proposal set out in the Voting Paper has been duly 
adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International 
Commission, is truly recorded in the present Direction No. 106. 

R. V. MELVILLF 
Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

31 Mar 1974 



182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclatuve 

OPINION 1026 

CHRYSOPA HUNGARICA KLAPALEK., 1899 (INSECTA, 
NEUROPTERA): NEOTYPE INVALIDATED 

RULING. — (1) The neotype designation for Chrysopa Iniugarica Klapalek, 
1899, made by Tjeder in 1963, is hereby invalidated. 

(2) The specific name Iniugarica Klapalek, 1899, as published in the binomen 
Chrysopa Iniugarica, and defined by the lectotype designated by Zeleny, 1971 
(Bull. zool. Nomeucl. 28 : 109), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology, with the Name Number 2535. 



HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1953) 
The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Bo 
Tjeder and Dr. J. Zeleny in December 1970. The application was sent to the 
printer on 18 March 1971 and was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 109, 
on 8th December 1971. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers 
was not required in this case. No comment was received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 28 March 1974 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (74)1 either for or against the 
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 109. At the close of the voting 
period on 28 June 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — twenty-two (22), received in the following order: 
Holthuis, Yokes, Mayr, Simpson, Lemche, Willink, Eisenmann, Sabrosky, 
Dupuis, Tortonese, Melville, Corliss, Habe, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Binder, 
Bernardi, Ride, Kraus, Bayer, Nye, Rohdendorf 

Negative votes — none (0). 

Voting Papers not returned — four (4): Brinck, Munroe, Erben, Heppell. 

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their 
votes: 

Prof. E. Mayr (4.iv.l974): "Another case where a neotype was unnecessarily 
created in violation of the rules. The Commission should not in the future 
accept such cases". 

Dr. C. Dupuis (7.vii.l974): "Si Ton n'avait pas la manie de designer des 
neotypes, il n"y aurait pas matiere a de telles actions". 

Original References 

The following is the original reference for the name placed on the Official 
List by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: 
Iniugarica, Chrysopa, Klapalek, 1899, Termeszetrajzi Fiizetek 11 : 440 

The original reference for the lectotype designation for Inmgarica Klapdlek, 
1899 is Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 109 

BiiU. :onl. Nomencl.. Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (74)1 were cast as set out above, 
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted, and 
that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, 
is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1026. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
23 July 1974 



184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

OPINION 1027 

SMINTHURINVS BORNER, 1901 (INSECTA, COLLEMBOLA): 

DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE 

PLENARY POWERS 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species 
for the nominal genus Striinthurinus Borner, 1901, made prior to this Ruling, 
are hereby set aside, and the nominal species, Sniyntlninis niger Lubbock, 
1868, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. 

(2) The generic name Sminthwimis Borner, 1901, (gender: masculine), 
type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Sniynthurus 
niger Lubbock, 1868, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology, with the Name Number 2004. 

(3) The specific name niger Lubbock, 1868, as published in the binomen 
Sniynthurus niger (type-species of Sminihurinits Borner, 1901) is hereby placed 
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with the Name Number 2536. 

(4) The generic name Smynthurella Houlbert, 1924, is hereby placed on the 
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the 
Name Number 2050. 



HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1954) 
The present case was submitted to the Office of the Commission by Dr. 
Willem N. Ellis in December 1970. The application was sent to the printer 
on 18 March 1971 and was printed on 8 December 1971, in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
28 : 110-111. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the 
present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other 
prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
21 : 184) and to seven specialist publications. The application was supported 
by Professor Bellinger; Professor Yosii; Professor Christiansen; H. J. Gough 
and M. C. Walters. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 28 March 1974 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (74)2 either for or against the 
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 1 1 1 . At the end of the prescribed 
voting period on 28 June 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — twenty-one (21), received in the following order: 
Holthuis, Yokes, Mayr, Simpson, Lemche, Willink, Eisenmann, Sabrosky, 
Tortonese, Melville, Corliss, Habe, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Binder, Bernard!, 
Bayer, Ride, Kraus, Nye, Rohdendorf. 

Negative votes — one (1): Dupuis. 

Voting Papers not returned — four (4): Brinck, Munroe, Erben, Heppell. 

In returning his voting paper. Dr. Dupuis made the following comment 
(7.V.1974): "Je vote pour, a condition que l"on supprime seulement la designa- 

Biill. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Pari 4. December 1974. 



Bullet ill of Zoological Nomenclature 185 

tion du Zool. An:, et que I'on se refere en (2) a la designation de 1906. Je 
refuse de supprimer cette designation de 1906 pour en formuler une autre 
identique. L'exercice des pleins pouvoirs doit etre aussi reduit que possible". 

Original References 

The following are the original references for the names placed on the 
Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in this Opinion: 
niger, Smyntiiurus, Lubbock, 186S, Trans. Linn. Sac. 26 : 297 
Smyntlnirella Houlbert, 1924, Thysaiwures, Dermapteres et Orthopteres de 

France et de lafaune europeenne. Vol. 1, G. Doin, Paris 
Sininthurinus Borner, 1901, Zool. Anz. 24(645): 343 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (74)2 were cast as set out above, 
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under 
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the 
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1027. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
23 July 1974 



186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

OPINION 1028 

FALCO EXILIS TEMMINCK, 1830 (AVES) SUPPRESSED 
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name exilis Tem- 
minck, 1830, as published in the binomen Faico exilis, is hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The specific name rufiventris Smith, 1830, as published in the binomen 
Accipiter rufiventris, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2537. 

(3) The specific name exilis Temminci<, 1830, as pubhshed in the binomen 
FaIco exilis and suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index 
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, with the Name Number 
998. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1956) 
The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by P. A. 
Clancey, the Chairman of S.A.O.S. List Committee, and four members of that 
Committee in January 1971. The application was sent to the printer on 
18 March 1971 and was published on 8th December 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
28 : 114-116. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was 
given in the same part of the Bulletin and also to the other prescribed serial 
publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to ten 
ornithological serials. The application was supported by Dr. Dean Amadon. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 28 March 1974 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (74)3 either for or against the 
proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 116. At the close of the voting 
period on 28 June 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — nineteen (19), received in the following order: Yokes, 
Mayr, Simpson, Lemche, Willink, Eisenmann, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Melville, 
Corliss, Habe, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Binder, Bayer, Ride, Kraus, Nye, 
Rohdendorf 

Negative votes — three (3): Holthuis, Dupuis, Bernardi. 

Voting Papers not returned — four (4): Brinck, Munroe, Erben, Heppell. 

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their 
votes: 

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (2,iv.l974): "It is perfectly clear from Smith's (1830) 
account that he had not the slightest intention of describing a new species, 
but only used the name Falco rufiventris Daudin in a new combination. I am 
informed that the specific name of the species is changed nowadays by many 
authors, as this South African sparrowhawk is considered by them a subspecies 
of Accipiter nisus (L.)". 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Pari 4. December 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nonienclalwe 187 

Dr. C. Dupiiis (7.V.1974) : "II me parait impossible de transformer une erreur 
d'identification en description d'espece nouvelle!" 

Dr. G. Beniardi (15.vi.l974): "Decider que nifiventris Smith, 1830 est 
'available even though Smith had no intention of publishing a new name' 
releve de la science-fiction (machine a remonter le temps). La Commission 
n"a pas a etre complice de Taction contraire a Velhiquc de Smith qui, apres 
une erreur de determination s'attribue en 1844 une priorite injustifiee sur 
Temminck, qu'il aurait du rectifier lui-meme". 

Original References 
The following are the original references for the names placed on the 
Official List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: 
exilis, Faico, Temminck, 1830, Planch. Color., livr. 84, pi. 496 
nifiventris, Accipiter, Smith, 1830, S. Afr. quart. J. (1) 1830 (April-June) 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (74)3 were cast as set out above, 
and that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted 
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of 
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1028. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Coninn'ssion on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
24 July \974 



188 BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclalure 

OPINION 1029 

RANA BOANS LINNAEUS, 1758 (AMPHIBIA): PLACED ON THE 
OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY 

RULING. — (1) The following names are hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : 

(a) boans Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Rana boans and 

interpreted by reference to the neotype designated by Duellman 
(1971 Herpetologica 27 : 399), Number 16603, in the Rijksmuseum 
van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden (Name No. 2538); 

(b) albopunctata Spix, 1824, as published in the binomen Hyla albopunctata, 

as defined by the neotype (University of Kansas Museum of Natural 
History, Number 100000) designated by Duellman, 1971, Herpetolo- 
gica 27 : 402 ; for use as the replacement name for Hyla boans Latreille, 
1801, by those zoologists who regard that species as congeneric with 
Raim boans Linnaeus, 1758. (Name No. 2539). 
(2) The name maxima Laurenti, 1768, as published in the binomen Rana 
maxima (a junior objective synonym of Rana boans Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 
with the Name Number 999. 



HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1957) 
The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by WiUiam 
E. Duellman and Juan A. Rivero in January 1971. The application was sent 
to the printer on 8 July 1971 and was published on 8 December 1971 in Bull, 
zool. Nomencl. 28 : 1 17-118. The proposal was supported by Hobart M. Smith 
{Bull. 29 : 195). 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 28 March 1974 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (74)4 either for or against the 
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 118. At the close of the voting 
period on 28 June 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — twenty (20), received in the following order: Holthuis, 
Yokes, Simpson, Lemche, Willink, Eisenmann, Sabrosky, Dupuis, Tortonese, 
Melville, Corliss, Habe, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Bernardi, Bayer, Ride, 
Kraus, Nye, Rohdendorf 

Negative votes — one (1): Binder. 

Abstention — one (1): Mayr. 

Voting Papers not returned — four (4): Brinck, Munroe, Erben, Heppell. 

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their 
votes : 

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (2,iv.l974): "Paragraph 7(2)(a). Hyla boans Latreille, 
1801, is not a primary homonym, but a secondary homonym of Rana boans 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 3), Part 4. December 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1 89 

Linnaeus, 1758, and therefore, not being suppressed under tiie Plenary Powers, 
cannot be placed on the Official Index". 

Dr. E. Eisenmann (27. iv. 1974): "The statute of limitations seems not to 
have applied as Rana boons Linnaeus had been revived prior to its adoption". 

Prof. C. Bernardi (15. vi. 1974): "La note de Duellman et Rivero constitue 
une exceilente mise au point nomenclatorique mais je ne suis pas sur qu'il 
est indispensable de faire sanctionner les conclusions de ces auteurs par la 
Commission". 

Dr. I. W. B. Nye {25.vi.1974): "Proposal (2)(a) should be amended from 
'. . . . primary homonym . . . .' to '. . . . secondary homonym . . . .' ". 

Original References 

The following are the original references for names placed on the Official 
List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: 
albopunctata, Hyla, Spix, 1824, Animalia nova, sive species novae Testudinum 

et Ranarum quas in ilinere per Brasiliam, annis 1817-1820 collegit et des- 

cripsit . . . J. B. Spix., Monachii: 33 
boans, Rana, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema naturae (ed. 10) 1 : 213 
maxima, Rana, Laurenti, J. N., 1768, Specimen medicum, exhibens synopsin 

Reptilium emendatum cum experimentis circa venena et antidota reptilium 

Austriacorum, Vienna: 32 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (74)4 were cast as set out above, 
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under 
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the 
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1029. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
Inlcrnaiional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
4 August 1974 



190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

OPINION 1030 

CYLINDRELLA SWAINSON, 1840 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA): 
SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the following generic names are 
hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law 
of Homonymy: 

(a) Cylindrella Swainson, 1840, type-species by monotypy Conus costatus 

Chemnitz, 1795; 

(b) Cylindrella Swainson, 1840, type-species by monotypy Cylindrella alba 

Swainson, 1840. 

(2) The generic name Cylichna Loven, 1846 (gender: feminine), type-species, 
by subsequent designation by Pilsbry, 1893, Bulla cylindracea Pennant, 1777, 
is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the 
Name Number 2005. 

(3) The specific name cylindracea Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen 
Bulla cylindracea, (type-species of Cylichna Loven, 1846) is hereby placed on 
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, with the Name Number 2540. 

(4) The following Generic Names are hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, with the Name Numbers 
specified: 

(a) Cylindrella Swainson, 1840 (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 2051); 

(b) Cylindrella Swainson, 1840: 311 (Name No. 2052); 

(c) Cylindrella Swainson, 1840: 326 (Name No. 2053). 

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1960) 
The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. H. 
Lemche in March 1971. The application was sent to the printer on 8 July 1971 
and was published on 8 December 1971 in Bidl. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 124-125. 
Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in this case was given 
in the same part of the Bulletin and to the other prescribed serial publications 
(Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to three specialist 
serials. No comment was received. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 28 March 1974 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (74)5 either for or against the 
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 125. At the close of the pre- 
scribed voting period on 28 June 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — twenty-two (22), received in the following order: 
Holthuis, Yokes, Mayr, Simpson, Lemche, Willink, Eisenmann, Sabrosky, 
Dupuis, Tortonese, Melville, Corliss, Habe, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Binder, 
Bernardi, Ride, Kraus, Bayer, Nye, Rohdendorf 

Negative votes — none (0). 

Voting Papers not returned — four (4): Brinck, Munroe, Erben, Heppell. 

Bull zool. Nomencl, Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 191 

Original References 

The following are the original references for names placed on the Official 
Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in this present Opinion: 
Cvlichna Loven, 1846, Ofvers. K. Vet. Ac. Forli. 111(5): 142 
cylindracea. Bulla, Pennant, 1777, Brit. Zool., ccl. 4, IV: 100 
Cylindrella Swainson, 1840, A Treatise on Malacology, in Lardner's Cabinet 

Cyclopaedia, London: 135 
Cylindrella Swainson, 1840 {torn, cit.): 311 
Cylindrella Swainson, 1840 (torn, cit.): 326 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (74)5 were cast as set out above, 
that the proposals contained in that Voting Paper have been duly adopted under 
the plenary powers and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the 
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1030. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
24 July 1974 



192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

OPINION 1031 

EOSTOMIAS EXIMIUS JORDAN & GILBERT, 1925 (PISCES): 

PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF 

SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY 

RULING. — (1) The specific name cxiinius Jordan & Gilbert, 1925, as 
published in the binomen Eostomias e.ximius, is hereby placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names in Zoology, with the Name Number 254L 

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1964) 
The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. R. 
Lavenberg in February 1971. The application was sent to the printer on 
8 July 1971 and was published on 31st December 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
28 : 164—165. The application was supported by Dr. Jules M. Crane, Jr.; 
the Nomenclature Committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and 
Herpetologists {Bull. 29 : 111) and George A. Moore. 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 28 March 1974 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (74)6 either for or against the 
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 ; 165. At the end of the voting 
period on 28 June 1974 the state of the voting was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — twenty (20), received in the following order: Holthuis, 
Yokes, Mayr, Simpson, Lemche, Willink, Dupuis, Tortonese, Melville, Corliss, 
Habe, Starobogatov, Aivarado, Binder, Bernardi, Bayer, Ride, Kraus, Nye, 
Rohdendorf. 

Negative votes — one (1): Sabrosky. 

Voting Papers not returned — four (4): Brinck, Munroe, Erben, Heppell. 

Dr. E. Eisenmann did not vote on this occasion. 

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their 
votes : 

Prof. E. Mayr (2.iv.l974): "The original designation of the neotype was in 
violation of the Code since no evidence was presented that there was a need 
for a neotype designation 'for solving a complex zoological problem'. The 
applicant wasted two pages of Bulletin". 

Prof. G. G. Simpson (6.iv.l974): "In spite of Article 75(f), there was really 
no reason to submit this wastefully to the Commission. The neotype designa- 
tion was not valid under Article 75". 

Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (27.iv.1974): "I have no objection to placing the name 
on the Official List, but I vote against it because that action would not accom- 
plish what the author wishes to do. Crane's neotype desgination, if valid, 
could only be nullified by use of the plenary powers (Art. 61), not by mere 
placing on the Official List of the name e.ximius as defined by the holotype. 
However, it appears to me that Crane's designation was not in accordance 

Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. .11, Part 4. December 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Noiuciiclaliire 193 

with Article 75(a), and that the neotype can therefore be disregarded without 
action by the Commission". 

Dr. C. Dupuis (7. v. 1974): "Si Ton n'avait pas la manic de designer des 
neotypes, il n'y aurait pas maticrc a de telles actions". 

Original References 

The following is the original reference for the name placed on the Official 
List by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: 
cximius, Eostomias, Jordan & Gilbert, 1925, Sianf. Univ. Pubis (Biol. Sci) 

4(1): 13 

CERTIFICATE 

1 certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (74)6 were cast as set out above, 
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under 
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the 
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1031. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
5 August 1974 



194 Bulklin of Zoological Nomenclature 

OPINION 1032 

HENIOLA UVAROV, 1940 (INSECTA, ORTHOPTERA): 

DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE 

PLENARY POWERS 

RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species 
for the nominal genus Heniola Uvarov, 1940, made prior to this Ruling are 
hereby set aside, and the nominal species Heniola gigliotosi Carbonell, 1971 
(as defined by the designated holotype from "ValJe del Zamora", Ecuador) 
is hereby designated to be type-species of that genus. 

(2) The generic name Heniola Uvarov, 1940 (gender: feminine), type-species 
by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Heniola gigliotosi 
Carbonell, 1971, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology with the Name Number 2006. 

(3) The specific name gigliotosi Carbonell, 1971, as published in the binomen 
Heniola gigliotosi (type-species of Heniola Uvarov, 1940) is hereby placed on 
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2542. 

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1966) 
The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. C. 
Carbonell in April 1971. The application was sent to the printer on 8 July 
1971 and was published on 31 December 1971 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 
166-167. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present 
case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed 
serial publications. (Constitution Article 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) 
and to seven specialist serials. The proposal was supported by Dr. A. Gurney. 
Dr. Lemche asked for an amendment to be made to the proposal in his com- 
ment {Bull. 29 : 112). 

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION 

On 28 March 1974 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote 
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (74)7 either for or against the 
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 167, and the amendment by 
Dr. Lemche that "paragraph (1), line four shall read 'n.sp. as defined by the 
designated holotype from "Valle del Zamora", Ecuador"'. {Bull. 29: 112) 
At the close of the prescribed voting period on 28 June 1974 the state of voting 
was as follows: 

Affirmative votes — twenty-one (21), received in the following order: 
Holthuis, Yokes, Mayr, Simpson*, Lemche, Willink, Eisenmann, Sabrosky, 
Dupuis*, Tortonese, Melville, Corliss, Habe, Starobogatov, Alvarado, Binder, 
Bernard!, Bayer, Ride, Kraus, Nye, Rohdendorf 

Negative votes — none (0). 

Voting Papers not returned — four (4): Brinck, Munroe, Erben, Heppell. 

Professor Mayr did not indicate which way he intended to vote. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nonienclalwe 195 

*Piofessor Simpson and Dr. Dupuis were in favour of the proposal but not 
in favour of the amendment. 

In returning their voting papers the following comments were made by 
Commissioners: 

Prof. G. G. Simpson (6.iv.l974): "I do not accept the amendment which is 
irrelevant because the Commission is voting only on Paragraph 9 of the original 
application, where there is no reference to allotypes or paratypes. The designa- 
tion of such 'types' is not part of the proposal. I agree that the Commission 
should not accept such designations. However, I further disagree with the 
wording 'n.sp. as defined by the designated holotype'. A holotype cannot 
define a species". 

Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (27.iv.1974): "Paragraph (I) of the request is concerned 
with type-species. Would not Dr. Lemche"s amendment be more appropriate 
in paragraph (3): (as published in . . . 1940) and as defined by . . .'? In the 
Opinion, 'n.sp.' should be replaced by 'Carbonell' wherever used in the decision 
itself". 

Dr. C. Dupuis (7.V.1974): "Carbonell est taxinomiquement libre de designer 
une serie de syntypes pour I'espece gigliotosi. Je vote (I) pour la designation 
de gigliotosi comme type du genre Heniola (2) contre I'amendement restrictif 
de Lemche". 

Prof. E. Tortonese (lO.v.1974): "I agree with Lemche's proposal". 

Prof. R. Alvarado (15. vi. 1974): "In voting 'for' I strongly adhere to Dr. 
Lemche's comments". 

Original References 
The following are the original references for names placed on the Official 
Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : 
gigliotosi, Heniola, Carbonell, 1971, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 28 : 167 
Heniola Uvarov, 1940, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11)5: 174 

CERTIFICATE 

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (74)7 were cast as set out above, 
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted, and 
that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, 
is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1032. 

R. V. MELVILLE 

Secretary 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

London 
6 August 1974 



196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

REVISED PROPOSALS ON THE VALIDATION OF AGLAJA 

RENIER, 1807, AGLAJA DEPICTA RENIER, 1807 AND 

A. TRICOLORATA RENIER, 1807 (MOLLUSCA, OPISTHOBRANCHIA); 

NEOTYPE SELECTION FOR A. TRICOLORATA. Z.N.(S.) 1092 

By Henning Lemche (Universitetets zoologiske Museum, Unircrsitetsparken 15, 
2100 Kobenhavn 0, Danmark) 

Following further information received from Dr. R. Burn, and comments by 
Dr. Sabrosky (Bull. 30 : 132) and Professor Sylvester-Bradley (Bull. 30 : 132) 
received since the publication of the original application (Bull. 29 : 127-130), 
1 have formulated a new set of proposals and here designate a neotype of 
Aglaja tricolorata Renier, 1807. 

Dr. Burn brought to my attention the fact that the earliest type-designation 
for Aglaja was Aglaja tricolorata, made by Suter (1913, Manual New Zealand 
Moll.: 542). He also informed me that in addition to Renier's two species, 
there are at least two other nominal species of Aglaja in the Mediterranean Sea. 
One is Aglaja suerati Vayssiere (1926, Journ. Conch. Paris 70 : 125) from Tunisia, 
and the other, although not yet recorded in the literature of the Mediterranean 
is represented by two specimens from the Bay of Naples, Italy, now in the 
collection of the National Museum of Victoria, Melbourne. (Reg. No. F27395). 

A. suerati cannot be confused with either A. clepicta or A. tricolorata and 
has recently been transferred to Melanochlaniys Cheeseman (1881, Trans. New 
Zealand Inst. 13 : 224) by Rudman (1972, Pacific Sci. 26 : 60). The specimens 
from the Bay of Naples are conspecific with A. taila Marcus & Marcus (1966, 
Stud. trap. Oceanogr. Miami A : 166) from the Gulf of Guinea, west Africa. 

Aglaja taila, like A. tricolorata has a tapering flagellum. The two species 
mentioned by me as being the only two from the Mediterranean, namely, 
A. tricolorata and A. depicta, are distinguished from each other by the presence 
(tricolorata) or absence (depicta) of a tapering flagellum on the posterior left 
lobe of the body shield. It seems that Vayssiere (1880, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool. 
(6) 9 : 73) and Bergh (1893, Mittheil. Zool. Stat. Neapel 11 : 111) correctly 
identified their Mediterranean species with the tapering flagellum, and that the 
species they described cannot be confused with A. taila. 

Aglaja taila is distinguished from A. tricolorata by the following characters: 
(I) a longer head shield relative to body length, (2) the presence of digitform 
foot corners and (3) the form of the male copulatory organ. 

It is therefore necessary that the concept of Aglaja tricolorata be fixed as 
the species without the digitiform corners and thus I am making the following 
designation of a neotjpe. 

Aglaja tricolorata renier, 1 807 description of a neotype 
The specimen here described was kindly placed at my disposal by Professor 

Al Barash of the Department of Zoology at the University of Tel Aviv, Israel. 

It belongs to the collection of that department. 

Labels. One label is marked in Indian ink "NS 972 Caesarea, Israel — 

Bull. zool. Nomeiicl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



Plate 1 



Bull zool. Nomenci, Vol. 31 






Bullet in oj Zoological Nomenclature 197 

4.1965 leg. E. Gilath", another (smaller strip) " "972 Aglaja tricolorata Renier, 
1804" (sic) and I have added a new one "Aglaja tricolorata Renier, 1807 
NEOTYPE designated by H. Lemche 1974". 

Description. (See plate). The very well preserved specimen is fully 
stretched, measuring 15 mm long, and 8 mm across from one edge of a para- 
podium to the opposite, and 5 mm high. The head is 6 , : 4 mm, the pallial 
shield 7x5 mm, the foot 1 1 3 mm e.xcluding the parapodia. 

The head as seen from above forms an oblong disc with a small median 
protrusion posteriorly. Its margins are sharp and reach out laterally to cover 
the large organs of Hancock placed on each side. The mouth is a T-shaped 
opening with the lateral lips separating it from the sides of the head. The 
seminal groove is narrow and runs from the genital opening beneath the base 
of the ctenidium forwards to the close proximity of the mouth, just right of the 
lowermost end of the mouth slit. 

The pallial shield is larger than the head and is marked off in front solely 
by its pigmentation, and so it is also to the left and along half of the right side. 
The sides of the body are pigment free. The pallial cavity opens beneath the 
posterior side and on half of the right side of the shield, the latter part being 
fully occupied by the ctenidium. This organ has a strongly curved axis with 
five distinct thick and rather low lamellae on the lower side, plus some larger 
and more densely set ones basally, not to be counted without damaging the 
specim.en. A narrow space separates the ctenidium from the lowermost part 
of the pallial fold on the left side which forms a kind of flap, from the outside 
of which rises a thin crest forming another flap pointing more posteriorly. 
This latter ends up in a transversely placed, tapering flagelluni. The right side 
of the pallium ends also in a kind of flap, but with no flagellum just a slight 
keel on the outside, and a small knob on the inside of its margin. The flagellum 
distinguishes the species tricolorata from depicta Renier, 1807. 

The foot is rectangular, with rounded anterior corners. Laterally, it con- 
tinues directly into the parapodia which are broadest almost in the middle of 
the body, then strongly decreasing so that their margins pass directly over into 
the posterior margin of the foot itself, about one fourth of the body length 
from the posterior end of the animal. 

On the preserved specimen the ground colour is still whitish, but it is covered 
by a greenish-brownish pigment (recorded as yellow and blue on living animals) 
distributed as extremely small dots in varying concentrations. The dorsal 
side of the head and pallium, the margins and lower sides of the parapodia, 
and the foot sole are pigmented, but the darkest parts are the foot sole, a stripe 
along the upper side of the flagellum (bordered by white), and less so a pair 
of indistinct patches connected by a broad stripe on the posterior half of the 
pallium, and parts of the lateral borders of the head. All over, the pigmented 
parts are broken by larger, rounded spots on the foot sole, but often slightly 
raised. There are very few of these spots on the foot sole, but elsewhere they are 

Plate 1 

Aglaja tiicolorala Renier, 1807 neotypa Caesarca (Fsracl) Mediterranean. 

Upper left: from above. Upper right: from below. Below: from the left. 



198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

rather abundant, though not enough to give the darker parts any similarity 
to a meshwork, as is usual in the species depicta. 

Thus, for the moment we distinguish between four Mediterranean species of 
Aglaja, viz. 

/animal small, slender, white seurati (Vayssiere) 

\animal broader, pigmented 2 

^ /anterior foot corners forming distinct flaps taila Marcus & Marcus 

\anterior foot corners rounded 3 

, /flagellum present posteriorly to the left tricolorataRemtr 

\flagellum absent depicta Renier 

To return to the proposals, I have duly studied the comments made by 
Dr. Sabrosky and Professor Sylvester-Bradley. 

I accept Sabrosky's criticism of the author indicated of the family aglajidae. 
This necessitates a change in proposal (l)(c). 

Sabrosky's comment on Accra has made me restudy also the position of 
Doridium. Both names become junior synonyms when Aglaja Renier, 1807 is 
validated. The type-species is A. tricolorata and not depicta Renier {—Dori- 
dium coriaceum and D. membranaceum both of Meckel, 1909 = Accra carnosa 
Cuvier, 1810) as mentioned earlier. Theoretically, depicta may some day be 
considered generically distinct from tricolorata, in which case Doridium — and 
next Acera — would have to be used. As earlier explained in detail, neither of 
these two names is free from problems, and their re-use or use may cause 
trouble. Thus I consider it better to leave my proposals in paragraph (2) 
unchanged. In order to conform with the change in (l)(c), proposal (5) is 
to be changed. 

I accept that the bird name Aglaia Swainson is a separate name as suggested 
by Sabrosky, with type-species Tanagra tatao Linnaeus, 1766. This species is 
also the type of Tangara Brisson, 1760, as re-validated. Thus Aglaia Swainson 
is definitely "killed" by being a junior objective synonym of Tangara, but at 
the same time its presence blocks the use of Aglaia Brady, 1867 — the topic of 
the comment by Sylvester-Bradley. However, as the reasoning which leads 
to the invalidation of Aglaia Brady is rather intricate, I do think it wise to 
place that name, as well as the family-group name aglainae Swainson, 1837, 
on the Official Indexes, which are made exactly for the purpose of making it 
easier for people to find out whether a certain name is definitely invalid. This 
reasoning makes my proposal (6)(d) unnecessary in its present form, and I 
propose to replace it as indicated below, to cover Aglaia Brady instead. On 
the other hand, I prefer to let paragraph (7) stand. 

Therefore, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature: 

(1) to use the plenary powers to validate 
(a) the specific names 

(i) depicta Renier, 1807, as published in the binomen Aglaja 

depicta; 
(ii) tricolorata Renier, 1807, as published in the binomen Aglaja 
tricolorata; 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 199 

(b) the generic name Aglaja Renier, 1807, (gender feminine) type by 

subsequent designation by Suter, 1913, Aglaja iricolorata Renier, 
1807 as validated under (l)(a)(ii) above; 

(c) the family name aglajidae Pilsbry, 1895 (1883) based on the 

generic name Aglaja Renier, 1807 (corr. pro 1804) as validated 
under (l)(b) above, and as emended from doridiidae Fischer, 
1883 based on Doriclium Meckel, 1809, a junior subjective 
synonym oi Aglaja Renier, 1807; 

(2) under the plenary powers to suppress for the Law of Priority but not 

for the Law of Homonymy, the generic names 

(a) Doridium Meckel, 1809, type-species by subsequent designation 

Doridium membranaceuin Meckel, 1809, 

(b) Accra Cuvier, 1810, type-species by monotypy, Accra carnosa 

Cuvier, 1810; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names: 

(a) depicta Renier, 1807, as validated under (l)(a)(i) above, 

(b) Iricolorata Renier, 1807, as validated under (l)(a)(ii) above and 

defined by the neotype selected by Lemche, 1974; 

(4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the name 

Aglaja Renier, 1807, as validated under (l)(b) above; 

(5) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, the 

name aglajidae Pilsbry, 1895 (1883), as accepted under (l)(c) above; 

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 

Zoology, the names 

(a) Aglaia Renier, 1804 a nomen nudum (Mollusca) 

(b) Doridium Meckel, 1809, and (c) Accra Cuvier, 1810, as suppressed 

under (2)(a) above 
{A) Aglaja Eschscholtz, 1825, (Coelenterata) a junior homonym of 

Aglaja Renier, 1807 
(e) Aglaia Brady, 1867 (Crustacea Ostracoda), a junior homonym of 

Aglaia Swainson, 1827 (Aves) 

(7) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group 

Names in Zoology, the names: 

(a) aglainae Swainson, 1837, an incorrectly based family group 

name (Aves) ; 

(b) DORIDHDAE Fischer, 1883, an invalid original spelling of aglajidae 

[Fischer, 1883] as corrected under (l)(c) above (Mollusca). 



200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO OPINION 908: CORRECTION OF 
THE TYPE-SPECIES OF LIUOCERIS REITTER, 1912. Z.N.(S.) 1786 

By Richard E. White (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S.D.A., c/o U.S. 
National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560) 

As an adjunct to Opinion 908 (1970, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27 : 12) there 
was a reference to Attelabus lilii Scopoli as the type-species of Lilioceris by 
virtue of the designation by Chujo (1951, Tech. Bull. Kagawa Agric. Coll. 
2 (2) : 80). This is in error, for the designation by Heinze (1937, Bull. Mus. r. 
Hist. Nat. Belg. 13 (25) : 3) of Chrysomela merdigera L. (an originally included 
species) takes precedence over that of Chujo. The error was made in the 
original appeal to the Commission by Selman and Smith (1967, Bull. zool. 
Nomencl. 24 (2) : 116). The type-species designation by Heinze does not 
alter the accepted zoological application of Lilioceris, for, as recognized by 
Selman and Smith, ///// Scopoli and merdigera L. are congeneric. 

I therefore propose that the entry 2(c) of Opinion 908 set out on page 1 2 
of Bull. zool. Nomencl. 27, be altered to read : 

{2){c) Lilioceris Reitter, 1912 (gender masculine), type-species by sub- 
sequent designation by Heinze, 1937, Chrysomela merdigera 
Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 1893). 



Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



Btillelin of Zoological Nomenclature 201 

AMPHISBAENA MILDEI PETERS: HOLOTYPE REDISCOVERED. 

Z.N.(S.) 1746 

By Carl Gans {The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.A.) 

In 1878 Peters described Amphisbaena miklei on the basis of one specimen 
from "Porto Alegre", Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, a locality from the vicinity 
of which the species A. pninicolor, A. darwini and A. munoai have now been 
recorded (Gans, 1966b). His description mentioned counts of body (198) 
and caudal (24) annuli, of 4 poorly visible precloacal pores as well as head 
scale asymmetries and proportions, all characteristics shared by some specimens 
of the three sympatric species. He did not mention the number of segments 
to a midbody annulus nor the characteristically knobbed caudal segment 
pattern; however, the characteristics of occipital segmentation, size, and colour 
suggested, but did not prove, that Peters had a specimen of Amphisbaena 
darwini Dumeril and Bibron, 1854, so that the name mildei would have been 
available for the distinct South Brazilian population of that species. 

Unfortunately the type of Amphisbaena mildei, supposedly number 6255 
in the Zoologischen Museum der Universitiit, Berlin, could not be located at 
the time the revision was proposed. Dr. H. Wermuth then informed me that 
it had perhaps been lost as no jar in the collection bore this name or number 
(Wermuth, 1967). In order to avoid future name changes I therefore addressed 
a petition to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 
(Gans, 1966a, 1967, 1968a, 1968b), and asked that the name mildei be con- 
sidered a nomen oblitum and hence unavailable. An interpretation by the 
secretary (Melville, 1969) confirmed that A. mildei was indeed a nomen oblitum 
(presumably technically invalid under the old Article 23b) and could not 
present any threat in its quality as a nomen dubium. The name trachura 
Cope (1885), in the combination Amphisbaena darwini trachura (Cope 1885) 
was hence applicable to the south Brazilian race. 

Last year (1973), through the courtesy of Dr. G. Peters, it proved possible 
to visit the Berlin Museum, there to review all of its amphisbaenian material. 
One of the jars contained the missing type. The faded original label had been 
marked in black pencil to state "Amphisbaena sp.?" and the number had been 
changed. However, examination under the microscope indicated that the 
label retained faded ink markings giving the original name, number, locality 
and collector of the holotype. 

The specimen fits the original description. Meristic characters in the 
standardized sequence (Gans, 1966b) are: 202 body, 3 lateral, (7 autotomy), 
and 19 caudal annuli; 18 dorsal and 22 ventral segments to a midbody annulus; 
3 supra and 3 infralabials; 4 segments in the first and 5 in the second postgenial 
row; 12 post malars; no precloacal pores; length snout-vent 301 mm, tail 
35 mm, diameter midbody 12.5 mm. The second supralabials are horizontally 
divided on both and the third supralabial on the left side only. The parietal 
segments are small and the shielded portion of the head short. The pig- 
mentation shows countershading and lateral fading and the dorsal body seg- 

Biill. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

ments show dark central spots. The terminal caudal segments appear convex 
in the typical knobbing of the caudal tip. Only the absence of pores differs 
from the original description. 

These characteristics support the concepts (I) that this is the holotype of 
A. mildei and (2) that the name would have pertained to the northern race of 
Amphisbaena darwini. The name remains a nomen oblitum, but the latter form 
should strictly be given the name Amphisbaena danvini mildei. 

In accord with Article 79(b) of the Monaco (1972) revision, I can certify 
that (a) the name A. mildei has not been used during the last 50 years as a valid 
name (Gans, 1966a, paragraph 4), and (b) the name Amphisbaena danvini 
trachura, during the last thirty years, has been referred to in more than ten 
publications (Gans, 1966b, 1967, 1974; Gans and Diefenbach, 1970; Gans and 
Wever, 1972; Gans et al., 1967; Huang et ah, 1967; Vanzolini, 1951, 1952; 
Wever and Gans, 1973). Several of these publications are in fields other than 
taxonomy. 

Since the rediscovery of this holotype is of historical interest only and its 
use would not serve the interests of stability, I request the International Com- 
mission on Zoological Nomenclature; 

(a) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Amphisbaena mildei 

Peters, 1878 for purposes of the Law of Priority but not the Law of 
Homonymy; 

(b) to place mildei Peters, 1878, as published in the binomen Amphisbaena 

mildei, as suppressed (a) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 
I thank Dr. H. Wermuth for information and Dr. G. Peters for his assistance 
while in Berlin. Supported by N.S.F. GB-31088X. 

References 
Cope, E. D. 1885. Twelfth contribution to the herpetology of tropical America. 

Proc. Am.pliil. Soc. 22 : 167-194 
DuMERiL, A. H. A., & BiBRON, G. 1838. Erpetologie generate on histoire nalurelle 

complete des reptiles. Paris, vol. 5, 855 pp. 
Gans, C. 1966a. Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878 (Reptilia): Proposed suppression 

under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 1746. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 23 : (4) 

162-163 

1966b. Studies on amphisbaenids (Amphisbaenia, Reptilia). 3. The small 

species from southern South America commonly identified as Amphisbaena 
darwini. Bull. Am. Miis. nat. Hist. 134 (3) : 185-260 

1967. A checklist of the recent amphisLaenians (Amphisbaenia, Reptilia). 

Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. 135 (2) : 61-106 

1968a. Amendment to application for the suppression of Amphisbaena 

mildei Peters, 1878. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 8 

1968b. Comment on the proposal to suppress Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 

1878. Z.N.(S.) 1746. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 4 

1974. Biomechanics. J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia-Toronto, x + 

261 pp. 

& Diefenbach, C. O. 1970. Amphisbaena. In Catalog of the neotropical 

Squamata. Part II. Lizards — Amphisbaenia. In: James A. Peters and 
Roberto Donoso-Barros, [eds.]. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. No. 297 : 26-38 

& Wever, E. G. 1972. The ear and hearing in Amphisbaenia (Reptilia). 

/ exp.Zool. 179(1) : 17-34 



Bullelin of Zoological Nomeiwlaiwe 203 

, Huang, C, & Clark, H. F. 1967. The diphyletism of the Ampliisbaenia 

(Reptilia). A reevaluation based upon chromosome counts. Copeia, no. 2, 

pp. 485^87 
Huang, C, Clark, H. F.. & Gans, C. 1967. Karyological studies on fifteen forms 

of amphisbaenians (Amphisbaenia: Reptilia). Cluoinosoina 22 (1) : 1-15 
Melville, R. V. 1969. Comment on the proposed suppression of Amphisbacna 

mitcki Peters, 1878. Z.N.(S.) 1746. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 25 : 211 
Peters, W. C. H. 1878. Cber vier neue amerikaaische /^oijo/i/iftne/ja-Arten. Mber. 

K. preiiss. Akad. Wiss. Berl.: nS-lS\ 
Vanzolini, p. E. 1951. Evolution, adaptation and distribution of the amphisbaenid 

lizards (Sauria: Amphisbaenidae). Thesis, Harvard Univ., pp. 1-148 
1953. On the type locality of some Brazilian reptiles and amphibians collected 

by H. H. Smith and described by E. D. Cope. Copeia, 124-125 
Wermuth, H. 1967. Comments on the proposed suppression of Amphisbaena 

mildei Peters, 1878. Z.N.(S.) 1746. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 8 
Wever, E. C, & Gans, C. 1973. The ear in Amphisbaenia (Reptilia); further 

anatomical observations. /. Zool., Lond. 171 : 189-206 

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS AMPHISBAENA MILDEI 
PETERS, 1878 (REPTILIA, .A.MPHISBAENIA) 

Nomenclature Committee, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, 
per C. J. McCoy, Chairman (Amphibians and Reptiles) 

Gans (1974, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 31 : 202) has requested that the Commission 
suppresses the name Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878, and places mildei Peters, 1878 on 
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. An earlier 
proposal by Gans (1966, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 23 : 162-163) for suppression of mildei 
resulted in a ruling by the Secretary that mildei Peters, 1878 was a nomen obliluni. 
Rediscovery of the holotype of mildei and confirmation of its identity with the south 
Brazilian race of Amphisbaena darwini has prompted Gans" latest petition, in order to 
preserve the name Irachura Cope, 18S5 for this form. An ad hoc committee of the 
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists has been formed to comment 
on this case: Mr. Federico Achaval, Departamento de Zoologia Vertebrados, Facullad 
de Humanidades y Ciencias, Montevideo, Dr. P. E. Vanzolini, Museu de Zoologia da 
Universidade de Sao Paulo, and Dr. C. J. McCoy, Carnegie Museum of Natural 
History, Pittsburgh, Chairman. 

The case for suppression of this nomen oblilum is fairly presented, and we agree 
with Gans that adoption of mildei for the northern race of Amphisbaena darwini would 
not serve the interests of stability. Not only has the name Amphisbaena darwini 
Irachura been in frequent use in the past thirty years, it has appeared in such influential 
works as a checklist of recent amphisbaenians (Gans, 1967, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. 
Hist., 135 : 70), and checklist and key to Neotropical amphisbaenians (Gans and 
Diefenbach, 1970, U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. (297) : 26-38). We wish to express our 
unanimous support for this proposal. 



Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

PARNALIUS RAFINESQUE 1815 (INSECTA, RHOPALOCERA): 
REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION. Z.N.(S.) 1884 

By N. D. Riley and L. G. Higgins (cjo Entomology Dept., British Museum 
(Natural History), London S.W.I) 

The genus of European Papilionid butterflies to which Rafinesque (1815, 
Analyse de la Nature: 128) applied the name Parnalius had till then been known 
as Thais Fabricius (1807, lUiger's Mag. Ins. 6 : 283). Thais Fabricius 1807, 
however, is an invalid junior homonym of Thais Bolten 1798, a genus of 
Mollusca. What Rafinesque's reasons were for introducing Parnalius is not 
clear from the context; what is clear is that he effectively created a replacement 
name for Thais Fabricius, type-species Papilio hypsipyle Fabricius, 1776, by 
monotypy. 

A year later Ochsenheimer published the new generic name Zerynthia (1816, 
Schmett. Europa 4: 29) specifically to replace the invalid monotypic Thais of 
Fabricius. 

Stichel (1907, in Wytsmans Genera Insectorum fasc. 59) in his account of the 
subfamily zerynthiinae included a bibliography of systematic works mention- 
ing the genus under consideration. Under Thais 32 references are given, under 
Zerynthia 8, under Parnalius 0, — the name is not mentioned. A search of the 
literature from 1815 to date has failed to produce any reference to Parnalius 
other than in Sherborn's Index Animalium, which is an alphabetical list of 
names in zoology. Since about 1904, when Kirby reintroduced Zerynthia, 
followed in 1907 by Stichel, this name has gradually superseded the invalid 
Thais of Fabricius; and the family-group name zerynthiinae (Kirby 1904-06) 
has gained acceptance. 

This is a typical example of the kind of case for the control of which Article 
23(b) (now 23(a-b)) of the Code was introduced : the threatened resurrection of a 
senior synonym, Parnalius, that has never been used for a very long period of 
time, in this instance 154 years, to replace a synonym, Zerynthia, one year its 
junior, which has been in use, admittedly somewhat sporadically prior to 1904 
but since then with increasing acceptance, and is the basis of the family-group 
name zerynthiinae. 

Accordingly we invite the Commission: — 

(1) to suppress the name Parnalius as in (1) above for the purposes of the 

Law of Priority, by the exercise of their Plenary Powers; 

(2) to place the said name in accordance with the action taken under (I) 

above on the Oflicial Index of Rejected Names in Zoology; 

(3) to place the generic name Zerynthia Ochsenheimer 1816, Schmelterlinge 

von Europa 4: 29, gender feminine, type species Papilio hypsipyle 
Fabricius, 1776, Gen. Ins. Mantissa: 265 (a junior subjective synonym 
of Papilio polyxena Denis & Schiffermueller (1775) on the Official List 
of Generic Names in Zoology. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 3], Part 4. December 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 205 

(4) to place the specific name polyxeiia Denis & Schiffermueller, 1775, as 
published in the binomen Papilio polyxena on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology. 

A postscript. Since this application was submitted, in March 1969, two usages of 
Parimlius have come to our attention, one in Kloet & Hincks, Check List of British 
Insects. Ed. 2, Part 2, Lepidoptera, 1972, the other in South, R., Butterflies of the 
British Isles, Ed. Howarth, T. G. 1973. 

Also, as a result of the Commission's clarification of Articles 23b and 79(b) (1972, 
B.Z.N. 29 : 185) it has become necessary to submit the following list of usages of 
Zerynthia in the last 50 years in preference to any other name for the genus concerned: 
Bryk F. 1923. Lepid. Cat. pars 27 : Baroniidae, Teinopalpidae and Parnassidae. 

Junk, Berlin: page 7. 
Wegener F. 1926 Neck glands in Zerynthia. Z. Morph. Okol. Tiere 5 : 155-206. 
ROMEI, E. 1927. Zerynthia rumina m SpSiin. Entomologist's Rec. J. Var. 39 : \36. 
VON Rosen, K. 1929-31. in Seitz, A. Macrolep. World vol. 1. Supplement (as 

synonym of Thais). Alfred Kernen, Stuttgart, 1932 : 17. 
Verity, R. 1947. Le Farfalle diurne d'ltalia. Casa editrice Marzocco, S. A. 

Firenze: 49. 
Hartig, F. and Amsel, H. G. 1951. Lepidoptera Sardinica. Fragm. ent. I : \-l52 
FoRSTER, W. and Wohlfahrt, T. A. 1955. Die Schmetlerlinge Mitteleuropas. 

Franckh'sche Verlagshandlung, Stuttgart: 3. 
NicuLESCU, E. V. 1961. Fauna Repub. Pop. Romania. Insecta XI pt. 5, Lepidop- 
tera, Fam. Papilionidae: 1-103 (68). 
Hruby, K. 1964. Prodromus Lepidopter Slovenska. Bratislava: 867. 
Hemming, A. F. 1967. The generic names of the Butterflies. Bull. Brit. Mus. 

(Nat. Hist.) Entomology. Suppl. 9 : 464. 
HiGGlNS, L. G. and Riley, N. D. 1970. A Field Guide to the Butterflies of Britain 

& Europe. Collins, London: 37-38. 
Manley, W. B. L. and Allcard, H. G. 1970. A Field Guide to the Butterflies & 

Burnets of Spain. E. W. Classey Ltd., Hampton, Middlesex: 22, 137. 
The above are nearly all works of major faunistic or taxonomic importance. The 
list is by no means exhaustive. 



206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

ARTICLE 50 AND QUESTIONS OF AUTHORSHIP. Z.N.(S.) 1925 

By Curtis W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Entomology 
Research Division, Agr. Res. Serr., USDA^} 

The case of "Heterotis Ehrenberg, 1829" [Z.N.(S.) 1807], published in the 
Bulletin for 7 December 1967 (d'Aubenton and Daget, pp. 291-293) raises 
questions of the authorship to be attributed to the names involved. There has 
been considerable difference of opinion about recent problems, and it seems 
desirable for the Commission to focus attention on the interpretation of Article 
50 as it affects the case of Heterotis and similar situations. 

2. Because single authors only are involved in the examples used, the 
statement in Article 50 can be simplified for present purposes by eliminating 
the plurals and the reference to joint publication: "The author of a scientific 
name is the person who first publishes it in a way that satisfies the criteria of 
availability, unless it is clear from the contents of the publication that . . . some 
other person is alone responsible both for the name and the conditions that 
make it available." 

3. The author who first publishes a name would appear to have a major 
claim on the name, because publication in the meaning of the Code is a primary 
criterion of availability (Article 11a). However, the last clause of Article 50 
clearly refers to conditions other than publication, because the author of the 
publication would obviously be responsible for the publishing of the name. 
Article 51c is further testimony that under certain conditions the "author" of a 
name, for purposes of nomenclature, is not the person publishing it; thus, 
"B in A" can only mean that "B" is the "author" of a name that was published 
in a paper by "A". 

4. The other conditions would ordinarily be a description or diagnosis 
(perhaps rarely a figure or an indication), because the conditions of date, 
language, etc. (Article lla-g) are general criteria that names must satisfy irre- 
spective of questions of authorship. There is no difficulty when a publishing 
author quotes the description furnished him by another author, as well as 
attributing the name to that author. The diflFerences of opinion arise when 
author "A" publishes author "B"s" manuscript name and attributes it to him 
but characterizes it in his own ("A's") words, or so treats it that one cannot say 
with certainty which author is actually responsible for the other "conditions 
that make it available" (i.e., the description or diagnosis). 

5. I believe that there will be so many variations and degrees of details 
that for simplicity and objectivity we should recognize as "the author" of a 
name that author who publishes the name and the qualifying conditions (Articles 
1 2 and 1 3), except only in cases of direct quotation or equally clearcut attribution 
of both name and description (and of course the specific exception provided for 
names in minutes, cf Article 50a). This is clearly the meaning of Articles 

'Mail address: c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560 
Bull. zool. NomencL, Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



Build in of Zoological Nomenclature 207 

50 and 51c; examples for these Articles in the Code would have been useful for 
clarity and better understanding. 

6. A few examples from different groups of animals will illustrate the case. 
Details differ, but the essential problem is surprisingly uniform. 

7. Example 1. Heleroiis and H. niloticus 

The relevant parts of this case {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 291-293) mav be 
recapitulated briefly: 

"Heleroiis niloticus Ehrenberg": Manuscript name, the plate labelled "1827" 
but not actually published until years later, in 1899. 

"Suclis niloticus, Ehr.": Published, with brief mention of characters, by 
Cuvier, 1829, Regne animal (ed. 2), 2 : .•'28. 

"Heterotis niloticus des Herrn Dr. Ehrenberg": Mention in a footnote by 
Riippell, 1829, Beschreibung unci Abbildung mehrercr neuer Fische im Nil 
enideekt, p. 10. The applicants in the present case, MM. d' Aubenton and 
Daget, consider the association of an available specific name (Cuvier had 
appeared earlier in 1829) with a new generic name to be an indication making 
available "the generic name Heleroiis Ehrenberg in Riippell, 1829." 

Everyone agrees that both names, Heterotis and niloticus. were manuscript 
names first coined by Ehrenberg. But this by itself does not confer nomen- 
clatural availability and authorship. They are no different from many un- 
published names on labels attached to specimens in collections, names in 
notebooks and similar manuscript records, and even published names if these 
are nomina nuda in mere lists of species. 

Everyone agrees also that the name niloticus was first published by Cuvier 
(1829) and the name Heterotis by Riippell (1829). The real question is whether 
other conditions for availability were the responsibility of Ehrenberg or of 
Cuvier and Riippell. For niloticus, the description, such as it is, appears in 
the words of Cuvier as far as one can tell. For Heterotis the situation is not 
clear because there is no description of the genus, and it rests upon the associa- 
tion of an already available specific name (niloticus) with a hitherto unpublished 
generic name (an "indication" in the sense of Article 16a, v). Ehrenberg "1827" 
cannot be credited with that indication; neither name was then published and 
available. Availability ofniloiieus came with Cuvier (1829), and Riippell (1829) 
was the first to associate in publication the name Heterotis with that available 
name. 

Conclusions: Nomenclaturally speaking, the author of Heleroiis is Riippell, 
and of niloticus, Cuvier. If one wished to show the source of the manuscript 
names adopted by those authors, one could write Heterotis Riippell (ex 
Ehrenberg) and niloticus Cuvier (ex Ehrenberg), but these bibliographical 
formalities are seldom used. 

8. Example 2. CchWm ^/iz/wj/ (Diptera: Syrphidae) 

In 1925, Shannon published a revision of syrphid flies of the sub-family 
Ceriodinae (1925, Inseeutor Inseitiae Menstruus 13 : 48-65). In a key to the 
American species, on p. 62, he included "... durani Davidson." In three 
lines at the bottom of the same page, under the heading "Ceriodes durani 
Davidson", Shannon wrote: "Mr. W. M. Davidson, who has the description 
of this species in manuscript, has kindly given me permission to include the 



208 BiiUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 

species in the key. He will shortly publish the description." Davidson 
published his description in another journal the following year (1926, Ent. 
News 37 : 40-42). 

Conclusion: The name was proposed by Davidson but published by 
Shannon; most important, the key was Shannon's work, and this was the 
essential condition that gave the name availability as of 1925. Accordingly, in 
the recent "Catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico" (Stone etal., 
1965 : 615), durani is credited to Shannon, 1925, and not to Davidson //; 
Shannon. 

9. Example 3. Sicyonia wheeleri (Crustacea) 

Burkenroad and Chace collected in Bermuda in 1936 and found a new 
shrimp, which Burkenroad christened Sicyonia wheeleri. with the intention 
of describing it later. In 1943, Gurney (Proc. Zool. Sac. London, Ser. B, 
113 : 1 ff.) described the larval stages of ''Sicyonia wheeleri Burkenroad," and 
thanked Burkenroad for the identification. In 1945, Burkenroad (Arkiv for 
Zoologi, 37A (9) : 5) finally published his own description of wheeleri (adult), 
as a new species. 

Conclusion : The name must be cited as Sicyonia wheeleri Gurney, or at most 
as Gurney (ex Burkenroad). Gurney first published the name with the essential 
condition that made it available, a description, and the description was Gurney's, 
not Burkenroad's. The name must be credited to the one who first published 
the name and described the taxon, in any of its stages. 

10. Discussion; Authorship is not ordinarily such a serious matter that 
exceptions to the Code need be made. It is more important that interpretation 
and application of the existing relevant rules be objective, consistent, and clear. 
Indeed, authors should realize that problems and seeming injustices commonly 
arise from their own carelessness in the dissemination of manuscript names, or 
of names "in press" that are unexpectedly delayed in appearance, followed by 
the innocent assumptions in good faith by correspondents that the names sent 
them have of course been published. Unfortunate as such cases are for the 
individuals concerned, there are really not many, and they should not influence 
automatic application of a consistent rule. 

1 1 . Except for Heterotis, which is already the subject of an application to 
the Commission (Bulletin 24 : 291-3, 1967), the names cited should not be 
placed on Official Lists. They are used here solely to illustrate the problems of 
authorship. One of them, or some similar case, could be considered by the 
Editorial Committee as an example under Article 50 in the new edition of the 
Code. 



Build in of Zoological Nomenclature 209 

LEPTOSOMATIDAE IN AVES AND NEMATODA: REQUEST TO 

PLACE LEPTOSOMIDAE BLYTH, 1838 AND LEPTOSOMATIDAE 

FILIPJEV, 1916 ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP 

NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. Z.N.(S.) 1975 

By A. M. Sudilovskaia (Zoological Museum of Moscow State University) 
and by G. N. Kashin (Moscow) 

The family-group name leptosomatidae is currently utilized in both aves 
(Coraciiformes) and nematoda (Enoplida). The name is based on different 
type-genera and the International Commission is requested to place the valid 
names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. The details 
of the case are as follows. 

use of LEPTOSOMATIDAE IN AVES 

The first person who created a subfamily-name leptosominae on the basis 
of the generic name Leptosomus Vieillot, 1816 (Aves) was Blyth, 1838, in The 
Magazine of Natural History, and Journal of Zoology, Botany, Mineralogy, 
Geology, and Meteorology, 2nd series, volume 2, p. 421. 

Ch. L. Bonaparte, 1850, Conspectus generum avium, raised the name to 
the full family rank — leptosomidae — on page 96 of volume I, listed as No. 18 
and had repeated the subfamily name as No. 36. From page 97 onwards 
Bonaparte began to date every issue of eight pages and has dated page 97 with 
1849. Therefore, the date of publication of leptosomidae may be either 1849 
or 1850. There does not seem to be any evidence that the parts were issued 
before 1st June 1850 and therefore the year of publication may be considered 
as 1850, 

Bonaparte listed the genus Leptosoma Vieillot (sine anno) under the family 
name and at the same time enumerated synonyms; one of which was Leptosomus 
Vieillot. Among the synonyms of specific names was discolor Hermann, 1783. 
Bonaparte's use of Leptosoma may be considered either as an unjustified emen- 
dation or an incorrect spelling as Vieillot created the name Leptosomus (1816, 
Analyse d'une nouvelle ornithologie elementaire Paris: 28). Vieillot gave no 
specific name but gave a brief description of the vouroudriou of Madagascar. 
(Hermann refers in 1783, Tabula Affinitatum Animaliuni olim academico speci- 
mene edita: 186, to Buffon, Histoire naturelle des oiseaux, vol. 6, p. 395, where 
he too mentions the vouroudriou). 

The generic name has been spelled both as Leptosoma and Leptosomus by 
subsequent authors. J. Cabanis and F. Heine, 1862, Museum Heineanum, 
part 4, p. 57 first used the name Leptosomus with the type-species discolor. 
P. L. Sclater in an article, 1865, Proc. Zool. Sac. 1865 : 682, called "On the 
structure of Leptosoma discolor", used the name Leptosoma Vieillot, although he 
confirmed that Vieillot in two of his works wrote Leptosomus. He also recog- 
nised Bonaparte's family Leptosomidae. 

O. Des Murs, 1860, Traite general d'oologie ornithologique: 530 used 
leptosomatinae as family of the tribe cuculidae (sic). 

Bull. zool. Nomciwl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

G. R. Gray (1869, Handlist oj genera and species of Birds: 11) used lepto- 
SOMINAE Bonaparte, 1850, as subfamily of the coraciidae, with four genera, 
among those Leptosonnis Vieiliot, 1816 (with synonyms, Leptosoma Bonaparte, 
1849, Courols Cuvier, 1817 and Crombus Reich., 1849) and the specific name 
discolor Herm. In 1886, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th edition, vol. 20: 627, 
in an article, entitled "Roller", the names Leptosonnis discolor and leptoso- 
MATIDAE were used. 

R. Bowdler Sharpe (1892, Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, 
vol. 17 : I) has used the name leptosomatidae, with the genus Leptosoma 
Vieiliot, Analyse, p. 28 (1816) and Crombus Reichenb., 1852, (Handb. Merop. 
p. 51). He also quoted Leptosoma discolor Scl. P.Z.S., 1865, p. 682. 

In 1896, A. Newton in "A dictionary of Birds" mentioned the names 
LEPTOSOMIDAE, p. 374, and leptosomatidae, p. 638 and 794; Leptosonnis 
pp. 654, 794 and 1058 and Leptosoma pp. 739, 972 and 1072 (Index). 

J. L. Peters (1945, Checklist of birds of the world, vol. 5 : 293) has used the 
family-name leptosomatidae with the genus Leptosonnis Vieiliot, 1816 and 
specific name discolor Hermann, 1783. The same names were also utilized by 
A. Landsborough Thomson, 1964, A new dictionary of birds: 150, 171 and 433. 

A. Wetmore (1930, A systematic classification for the birds of the world 
and 1960, A classification for the birds of the world) has used leptosomatidae 
and Leptosoma. He objects to the proposal of Mayr and Amadon (1951, 
A classification of recent birds. Am. Mus. Novit.. No. 1496) to include the 
rollers in one family, the coraciidae, with three subfamilies, one of them 
being leptosomatinae. 

USE OF leptosomatidae in nematoda 
In 1916, 1. N. Filipjev (Ezheg. zool. Mus. 21 : 59-116) created the sub- 
family-name LEPTOSOMATiNi in which he included the following genera: 
Leptosomatus Bastian, 1865; Cylicolainnis de Man, 1889; Deontosoma Filipjev, 
1916; Thoracostoma Marion, 1870 and Phanodcrma Bastian, 1865. The name 
was raised to family status by De Conninck and Shuurmans Stekhoven (1933, 
The freeliving marine nemas of the Belgian Coast. Mem. Mus. r. Hist. nat. 
Belg. 58 : 3-163). 

Therefore in the interests of stability and uniformity in nomenclature, 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is asked : 

(1) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in 

Zoology: 

(a) Leptosomus Vieiliot, 1816 (gender: masculine), type-species by 

selection by J. Cabanis and F. Heine, 1862 {Mus. Hein. 4 : 57): 
Cuculus discolor Hermann, 1 783, 

(b) Leptosoniatum Bastian, 1865 (Trans. Linn. Soc. 25 : 144) (gender: 

neuter), type-species by original designation, Leptosomatiim 
elongatum Bastian, 1865; 

(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in 

Zoology : 

(a) discolor Hermann, 1783, as pubhshed in the binomen Cuculus 
discolor (type-species o^ Leptosomus Vieiliot, 1816), 



Btillelin of Zoological Nomcnclalure 2 1 1 

^''^''Zr," Y'^"' '^^/' '"'^ P"'""'^^'' '" 'he binomen Leptoso- 
manm, chugalwn (type-species of Leplosonwtwn Baslian, 

(a) LEPTOSOMiDAE Blyth, 1838, type-genus Leptosomus Vieillot 1816 
(b)LEPTosoMAT.DAE Filipjev, 1916. type-genus L.p,..«„,«,„,„ Bastian 

(4) to place Leptosoma Bonaparte, 1849 on the Official Index of Rejected 

and Invalid Genenc Names in Zoology, being an incorrect subsequent 
l^^ iJ^f'^'^Z' ""J"^"'^^'^ emendation oi Leptosomus Vieillot. 1816- 

(5) to place the followmg name on the Official Index of Rejected and 

Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology 

(a) LEPTOSOMATINAE O. Des Murs, 1860, being an incorrect sub- 
Blyl'h 18T8 ^"^ °' '" unjustified emendation of leptosom.nae 



212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

AMENDMENTS TO AN APPLICATION ON NASSARIIDAE 

IREDALE, 1916 (GASTROPODA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION 

UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1987 

By W. O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, 
New Zealand) 

At the request of the Secretariat, additional information pertaining to the 
application for the proposed conservation of nassariidae Iredale, 1916, (Bull, 
zool. Nomencl. 29(1) : 62, 1972) is herewith supplied. 

A taxonomic discussion on the validity of Nassarius Dumeril, 1806, has been 
recently published by this applicant (Cernohorsky, 1972, Rec. Auckl. Inst. Mus. 
9 : 127). The facts are as follows: Iredale (1916, Proc. Malac. Soc. Land. 
12 : 82) in his review of Dumerirs "Zoologie Analytique" of 1806, came to 
the erroneous conclusion that Nassarius Dumeril was a substitute name for 
Nassa Lamarck, 1799 {non [Roding], 1798 — a genus in the family Muricidae), 
when he stated that "Nassarius — this can only be determined as a new name for 
Nassa Lamarck, 1799, non Bolten, 1798 [= Roding, 1798]". Dumerifs entry 
on page 166 of the above-cited work reads "Les uassiers (nassarius)", nothing 
more or less, no species were cited nor is there any indication in Dumeril's 
work that his "Nassarius" was intended as a replacement name for any prior 
genus-group name. Nassarius Dumeril, 1 806, must therefore be interpreted as a 
genus-group name without included nominal species. Froriep (1806, Dumeril's 
Analyt. Zool. p. 167) in his German translation of Dumeril's original French 
work, cited the single species Buccinum arcularia Linnaeus, as an example of 
Dumeril's Nassarius, and it is therefore Buccinum arcularia Linnaeus, 1758, 
which becomes the type-species of Nassarius Dumeril. 1806, by subsequent 
monotypy by Froriep, 1806. 

Since additional information has come to light, the prior family-group 
names including newly discovered ones, are reviewed chronologically: 

(a) CYCLOPsiDAE Chenu, 1859, Man. Conchyl. 1 : 164 (type-genus Cyclops 

Monlfort, 1810— ;)0« Cyclops Mueller, 1776). 
The name of the type-genus being a homonym, the family-group name is not 
available. 

(b) CYCLONASSiNAE Gill, 1871, Smiths. Misc. coll. 10(2) : 5 (type-genus 

Cyclonassa Swainson, 1840, with its type-species by monotypy Bucci- 
num neriteum Linnaeus, 1758). 
The type-genus Cyclonassa Swainson, 1840, is a synonym of Cyclope Risso, 
1826 (type-species C neritoidea Risso, 1826 = Buccinum neriteum Linnaeus, 
1758, by subsequent designation by Keen, 1964 — see Opinion 793. 1966, Bull, 
zool. Nomencl. 23 : 227). 

(c) CYLLENINAE Bellardi, 1882, Mem. R. Accad. Sci. Torino 34 : 159 (type- 

genus Cyllene Gray in Griffith & Pidgeon, 1834, with its type-species 
C. onenii Gray in Griffith & Pidgeon, 1834, by monotypy). 
The genus-group name Cyllene is in current valid use, and cvlleninae would 
be utilized in a subfamilial arrangement of the nassariidae. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl.. Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 213 

(d) DORSANiNAE Cossmann, 1901, Ess. paleoc. coinp. 4 : 195, 197 (type-genus 

Dorsaniim Gray, 1847, with its type-species Buccimim politum Lamarck, 

1822, by subsequent designation by Cossmann, 1901); Carcelles & 

Parodiz, 1939, Physis, Rev. Soc. Aig. Cienc. Nat. 17 : 745; Klappen- 

bach 1961, Neotropica 7:87; Rios 1970, Coast. Brazil, seashells 

p. 92. 

The genus Dorsaimm is in current use in the nassariidae and dorsaninae 

would be utilized in a subfamilial arrangement of the family. The genus 

Dorsanwn is considered by most authors to belong to the family Nassariidae, 

but Rios (1970, op. cii., p. 92) and Penchaszadeh (1971, Neotropica 17 : 49) 

place Dorsanwn, erroneously in the writer's opinion, in the family buccinidae. 

(e) ALECTRiONiDAE Dall, 1908, Bull. Mus. Coinp. Zool. Harv. 43 : 306 (type- 

genus Alectrion Montfort, 1810, with its type-species Buccinuin 
papillosum Linnaeus, 1758, by original designation); Dall 1909, Proc. 
U.S. Nat. Mus. 37 ; 214; Suter 1913, Man. N.Z. Moll. p. 395; Bartsch 
1915, U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 91 : 51; Cooke 1917, Proc. Malac. Soc. 
Loml. 12 ; 263; Zetek 1918, Rev. Nueva Cienc. Lit. Art. Panama 5 ; 
528; Oldroyd, 1924, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 65 : II; Oldroyd 1927, 
Mar. shells w. coast N. Amer. 2 : 263. 
Alectrion Montfort, is in current use as a subgenus of Nassarius Dumeril. 

(f) ARCULARiiDAE Iredalc, 1915, J. Conch. 14 (10) : 345 (type-genus 

Arcularia Link, 1807, with its type-species Buccinum arcularia Lin- 
naeus, 1758, by subsequent designation by Morch, 1863). 
The type-genus Arcularia Link, 1807, is an objective synonym oi Nassarius 
Dumeril, 1806. The exact date of publication of arcularudae is uncertain. 
On the cover of the Journal is "published August 1915" but at the bottom 
of the page the year "'1916'" appears. 

In a modern arrangement, the subfamilial divison of nassariidae would be 
as follows; 
nassariidae 
NASSARiiNAE Iredale, 1916 (senior synonyms: cvclonassinae Gill, 1871; 

ALECTRIONIDAE Dall, 1908 and arcularudae Hedley, [1915]) 
CYLLENINAE Bellardi, 1882 
dorsaninae Cossmann, 1901 
Following strictly principles of the Law of Priority, the subfamilial division 
would be as follows: 
cyclonassidae 

CVCLONASSINAE Gill, 1871 

CYLLENINAE Bellardi, 1882 

DORSANINAE Cossmann, 1901 

The objection against the re-instatement of the oldest name cyclonassidae 

as a family-group name is the synonymy of the type-genus Cyclonassa Swainson, 

1840 (=Cyclope Risso, 1826), and that the family-group name remained unused, 

and that the type-species Cyclope neritca (Linnaeus) is an atypical member 

of the NASSARIIDAE. 

The three genera which still remain in valid use in nassariid taxonomy are 
Cyllene Gray in Griffith & Pidgeon, 1834, Dorsanwn Gray. 1847, and .Alectrion 



214 Biilleiin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Montfort, 1810 (the latter as a subgenus of Nassarius Dumeril). Should the 
Commission decide to apply the principles of the Law of Priority when dealing 
with this application, then it is suggested that cyclonassinae Gill, 1871, 
be suppressed and the family-group names validated as follows : 

CYLLENIDAE 

CYLLENINAE Bellardi, 1882 
DORSANINAE Cossmann, 1901 

ALECTRIONINAE Dall, 1908 

The Commission is requested to add the following to the original proposals: 

(2) to place the following family-group name on the Official List of Family- 

Group Names in Zoology: 

(d) CYLLENINAE Bellardi, 1882 (type-genus Cvllene Gray /;; Griffith & 

Pidgeon, 1834); 

(3) to place the following generic name on the Official List of Generic 

Names in Zoology: 

(e) Cvllene Gray in Griffith & Pidgeon, 1834 (gender: feminine), 

type-species by monotypy Cvllene owenii Gray ;/; Griffith & 
Pidgeon, 1834; 

(4) to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific 

Names in Zoology: 

(d)owenii Gray in Griffith & Pidgeon, 1834, as published in the 
binomen Cvllene owenii. 



Bullet in of Zoological Nomenclature 215 

ALCIDAE (EX ALCADAE) ANON. 1820 (AVES) AND ALCEIDAE (EX 
ALCEDAE) BROOKES, 1828 (MAMMALIA): REQUEST FOR ADDITION 
TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. 

Z.N,(S.)2011 

By G. N. Kashin (Moscow) 

The name alcinae has been used for the sub-family of auks, based on the 
generic name AIca Linnaeus, 1758 and for the sub-family of elks, based on the 
generic name Aloes J. E. Gray, 1821. 

Thirteen different names have been used for the supra-generic taxa of 
auk-like birds, of which I list the principal forms: alcadae Anonymous, 1820; 
ALCIDAE and ALCINAE Bonaparte, 1831 and alcini Lilljeborg, 1866. The 
earliest family-group name, alcadae, was published anonymously in the 
Seventeenth Edition of the Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum, 
1820 : 68. This was presumably written by the Keeper or Assistant Keeper 
of the day, posts held by Charles Konig and Dr. W. E. Leach. Dr. Leach was, 
in fact, the Assistant Librarian and it seems that he was responsible for the 
Zoological Collections. There are several reports by Dr. Leach in 1820, on 
acquistions of birds, although there is no indication on the copy of the Synopsis 
of his authorship. 

J. E. Gray, 1872 (Catalogue of Ruminant Mammalia (Pecora Linnaeus) 
in the British Museum) also used the family name alcadae (based on Alces) and 
prior to this Brookes, 1828 {Cat. Anat. Zool. Mus. : 62) used alcedae. 

In accordance with the Code Article 29, the two family names should be 
corrected as follows: alcidae for AIca Linnaeus, 1758 and alceidae for Alces 
Gray, 1821. 

Therefore, I request the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature to: 

(1) place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names 

in Zoology: 

(a) ALCIDAE (ex alcadae) Anon., 1820, type-genus AIca Linnaeus, 

1758 (Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, No. 691, 
Opinion 271, supplementary to Opinion 16); 

(b) alceidae (ex alcedae) Brookes, 1828, typ-genus Alces Gray, 1821 

(Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, No. 385, Opinion 91 
Directions 10 & 22). 

(2) place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 

Family-Group Names in Zoology. : 

(a) ALCADAE Anonymous, 1820 (Synopsis of the contents of the contents 
of the British Museum, 17 th edition: 68); 

(b) ALCEDAE Brookes, 1828 (Cat. Anat. Zool. Mus.: 62). 



Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

CALOMICRUS TAENIATUS WOLLASTON, 1867 (INSECTA, 

COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE 

PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2012 

By Hans Siifverberg {Zoological Museum of the University, Helsingfors, 

Finland) 

1. T. V. Wollaston (1867 : 145) described from the Cape Verde Islands a 
species called Calomicrus taeniatus. The description was fairly long and 
complete, making the identification of the species in question easy. In the 
collections of the British Museum (Natural History) there is a long series of 
syntypes. 

2. L. Fairmaire (1880a : 317) described the species Luperus quaternus 
from Madagascar. The description was rather short, but gave the essential 
characters. Later he (Fairmaire 1880b : 340) gave a more complete des- 
cription, also restricting the type locality to Nossi-Be. The holotype of L. 
quaternus is situated in the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, in the 
Allard collection. 

3. Recent investigation, including study of the types, has shown that 
both these names refer to one and the same species, which is distributed widely 
over tropical Africa. Priority would demand that the name taeniatus be used 
for this species. 

4. Since the description, the name taeniatus has not been used in a single 
systematic work, nor indeed anywhere but the World Catalogue (Weise 1924 : 
123) where it was listed as Luperus taeniatus, and its supplement (Wilcox 1973 : 
433), where it was listed as Medythia taeniatus. Contrastingly, the name 
quaternus has been used by a number of authors in many works of both syste- 
matic and applied entomology, during the last fifty years for instance in the 
following (the list is not exhaustive): Luperodes quaternus Fairm., Weise, 1927 
19;Laboissiere, 1931 : 26; Jepson, 1948 : 235; Bryant, 1956 : 408;Bryant, 1957 
362; Bryant, 1958 : 46; Bryant, 1959 : 7; LePelley, 1959 : 13; Bryant, 1960 
356; Bryant, 1963 : 94; Forsyth, 1966 : 57; Schmutterer, 1969 : 34. Paralu- 
perodes quaternus Fairm., Laboissiere, 1937 : 167; Laboissiere, 1940 : 47. 
Medythia quaterna Fairm., Wilcox, 1973 : 433. 

Obviously, to revive for this common and at least potentially noxious species 
a name that has been unused for a century and more could only lead to con- 
fusion. 

It is therefore requested that the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature: 

(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name taeniatus Wollaston 

1867, as published in the binomen Calomicrus taeniatus, for the 
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of 
Homonymy; 

(2) place the specific name suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index of 

Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ; 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 217 

(3) place the specific name quaternus Fairmaire, 1880, as published in the 
binomen Luperus quaternus, on the Official List of Specific Names in 
Zoology. 

References 
Bryant, G. E. 1956. Contributions a I'etude de la faune entomologique du Ruanda- 
Urundi (Mission P. Basilewsky 1953). XCVII. Coleoptera Chrysomelidae 
Donaciinae, Criocerinae, Megalopodinae, Clytrinae, Cryptocephalinae (part.), 
Eumolpinae and Galerucinae. Ann. Mus. Congo. Zool. 51 : 395^12 

1957. Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae of South-West Arabia. Ann. Mag. Nat. 

Hist. (12) 10 : 353-363 

1958. Galerucinae (Coleoptera Chrysomelidae). Explor. Pare. Nat. Upemba. 

Miss, de Witte. 49 : 41-65 

1959. Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae. Ruwenzori Exped. 1952 \\ : \-\5 

1960. Mission zoologique del' I.R.S.A.C. en Afrique orientale (P. Basilewsky 

et N. Leleup, 1957) XXI. Coleoptera Chrysomelidae. Ann. Mus. Congo. 
Zool. 81 : 342-368 

1963. Galerucinae (Coleoptera Chrysomelidae). Explor. Pare Nat. Garamba, 

Miss, de Saeger 40 : 77-130 

Fairmaire, L. 1880a. Diagnoses de Coleopteres de Madagascar. Naturaliste 2 : 
316-317 

1880b. Description de quelques Coleopteres de Nossi-Be. Ann. Soe. ent. 

France (Ser. 5) 10 : 321-340 

Forsyth, J. 1966. Agricultural insects of Ghana. Ghana Universities Press, 

Accra, 163 pp. 
Jepson, W. F. 1948. An annotated list of insects associated with ground-nuts in 

East Africa. Bull. ent. Res. 39 : 231-236 
Laboissiere, V. 1931. Contributions a I'etude de la faune de Mozambique. Voyage 

de M. P. Lesne (1928-1929). 4« Note, Coleopteres, Galerucini. Mem. 

Estud. Mus. Zool. Univ. Coimbra (1) 48, 55 pp. 

1937. Galerucinae africains de la collection du Musee Civique de Genes. 

Deuxieme note. Ann. Assoc. Nat. Levallois-Perret 22 : 139-184 

1940. Galerucinae (Coleoptera Phytophaga) Fam. Chrysomelidae. Explor. 

Pare Nat. Albert, Miss, de Witte (1933-1935) 31 : 1-93 

LePelley, R. H. 1959. Agricultural insects of East Africa. E. A. High Comm. 

Nairobi, 307 pp. 
ScHMUTTERER, H. 1969. Pcsts of crops in Northeast and Centra! Africa. Gustav 

Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, 296 pp. 
Weise, J. 1924. Chrysomelidae: 13. Galerucinae. Coleopt. Cat. 78, 225 pp. 

1927. Uber bekannte und neue Chrysomeliden und Coccinelliden aus dem 

Reichsmuseum zu Stockholm. Ark. Zool. 18A : 34, 34 pp. 

Wilcox, J. A. 1973. Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae. Luperini; Luperina. Coleopt. 

Cat., Suppl. 78 (ed. sec): 433-664 
WoLLASTON, T. V. 1867. Coleoptera Hesperidum, being an enumeration of the 

coleopterous insects of the Cape Verde archipelago. J. van Voorst. London, 

285 pp. 



218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF XIPHIDIUM GLABERRIMUM 

BURMEISTER, 1838, AND ORCHELIMUM CUTICULARE 

AUDINET-SERVILLE, 1838, AND PROPOSED ADDITION OF 

ORCHELIMUM VULGARE HARRIS, 1841, TO THE OFFICIAL 

LISTS (INSECTA, GRYLLOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 2060 

By V. R. Vickery {Lyman Entomological Museum and Research Laboratory, 

Macdonald Campus, McGill University, Sle. Anne de Belle vue. 

Province of Quebec, Canada, H9X 3MI) 

The object of this submission is to stabilize Orchelimum vulgare Harris 
1841, a name which has had uninterrupted use for 64 years. 

Prior to 191 5, two names, Orchelimum glaberrimum (Burmeister, 1838) and 
Orchelimum vulgare Harris, 1841, were confused (Rehn and Hebard, 1915). 
Rehn and Hebard (op. cit.) synonymized Orchelimum cuticulare Audinet- 
Serville 1838, with O. glaberrimum and, in error, also included Orchelimum 
crythrocephalum Davis 1905. They stated that the types of both glaberrimum 
and cuticulare were lost. A search of repositories in Europe, during 1973, 
revealed that the type of cuticulare is indeed lost. However, the specimens 
used by Burmeister in describing glaberrimum were found, not in Halle where 
they were supposed to have been deposited, but in the Zoologisches Museum 
fiir Naturkunde, Humboldt Universitat, Berlin. There is no doubt regarding 
the identity of the specimens. However, they are conspecific with O. vulgare 
Harris, not with O. erythrocephalum Davis, as Rehn and Hebard {op. cit.) had 
indicated. 

Vickery and Johnstone (1974) pointed out the synonymy of the two names; 
designated a lectotype for Xiphidium glaberrimum Burmeister, 1838; designated 
the same specimen as neotype for Orchelimum cuticulare Audinet-Serville, 1 838 ; 
designated a neotype for Orchelimum vulgare Harris 1841; and removed 
Orchelimum erythrocephalum Davis, 1905, from synonymy with O. glaberrimum. 
Vickery and Johnstone {op. cit.) also stated clearly that the name vulgare should 
continue to be used for the species in question pending a submission to the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suppress glaberrimum 
and cuticulare. 

The name glaberrimum was in a confused state prior to 1915 (Rehn and 
Hebard, 1915), and since that time has been misapplied (to erythrocephalum) by 
the few authors who used it. Blatchley (1920) mentioned but did not accept 
the name. In contrast, the name vulgare has been in continuous use and, 
since 1915, has not been confused with other names (Blatchley, 1920; Hebard 
1925, 1932; Hendrickson, 1928, 1930; Knutson and Jaques, 1935; Urquhart, 
1941a, 1941b; Froeschner 1954; Walker //; Urquhart, 1957; Vickery and Kevan, 
1967 and others). The name cuticulare has not appeared in the literature 
except as a junior synonym (Rehn and Hebard, 1915; Blatchley, 1920) and 
designation as type species of Orchelimum by Kirby (1906). 

Article 23 (a-b) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 
states that application of the Law of Priority should not "disturb stability" 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalwe 219 

or "cause confusion". The application of priority in the case at hand would 
disrupt stability and cause confusion. Therefore, the Commission is petitioned 
to take the following actions: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific names for the 

purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of 

Homonymy: 

{a) glaberrinmm Burmeister, 1838, as published in the binomen 

Xiphidiuin glaberriinum (Handb. Ent. 2 (2), Pt 1 : 707); 
(h) culicidare Audinet-Serville, 1838, as published in the binomen 

Orchelimum culiculwe {Hist. nat. Insectes Orlli.: 523-524): 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the name 

Orchelimum Audinet-Serville, 1838 (gender: neuter) type-species by 
subsequent designation by Kirby, 1906 (Si". Cat. Ortli. II. Orili. Salt. 
1 : 273) Orchelimum cuticulare Audinet-Serville, 1838; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the name 

vulgare Harris, 1841, as published in the binomen Orchelimum vulgare 
(Rept. Ins. Mass. inj. Veg., p. 130); 

(4) to place on the Official Inde.x of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 

Zoology: 

(a) glaberrimum Burmeister, 1838, as published in the binomen Xiphid- 

iuin glaberriinum and suppressed under the plenary powers in 
(I) above; 

(b) cuticulare Audinet-Serville, 1838, as published in the binomen 

Orchelimum cuticulare and suppressed under the plenary powers 
in (I) above. 

References 

Those references marked with an asterisk fulfil the reqiiirements laid down in Article 79(b) for 
the suppression of unused senior synonyms. 

Audinet-Serville, J. G. 1838. Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. Orthopteres, 

Paris. 776 pp., 14 pi. 
Blatchlev, W. S. 1920. Orthoptera of Northeastern America, Nature Publ. Co., 

Indianapolis, U.S.A. 1784 pp. 
Burmeister, H. 1838. Handbuch der Entomologie 2 (2), pt. 1. Berlin 
Davis, W. T. 1905. The Red-headed Orchelimum and some other New Jersey 

Orthoptera. Can. Ent. 37 : 288-289 
*Froeschner, R. C. 1954. The Grasshoppers and other Orthoptera of Iowa. 

Iowa St. Coll. J. Sci. 29 : 163-354 
*Hebard, M. 1925. The Orthoptera of South Dakota. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Phila. 

11 : 33-155 
* 1932. The Orthoptera of Minnesota. Univ. Minn. agr. e.xp. Sta. tech. Bull. 

85 : 1-161 
*Hendrickson, G. O. 1928. Some notes on the insect fauna of an Iowa prairie. 

Ann. ent. Sac. Am. 31 : 132-138 

* 1930. Studies on the fauna of Iowa prairies. Iowa St. Coll. J. Sci. 4 : 49-119 

Kirby, W. F. 1906. Orthoptera Saltatoria. Part 1 (Achetidae et Phasgonuridae). 

A Synonymic Catalogue of Orthoptera. London 2, 562 pp. 
*Knutson, H., & Jaques, H. E. 1935. A revised list of the Orthoptera of Iowa. 

Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. 42 : 179-184 



220 Bullet in of Zoological Nomenclature 

Rehn, J. A. G., & Hebard, M. 1915. Studies in American Tettigoniidae (Orthop- 

tera). IV. A Synopsis of the Species of the Genus Orchelimum. Trans. Amer. 

ent. Soc. 41 : 11-83 
*Urquhart, F. A. 1941a. An ecological study of the Saltatoria of Point Pelee, 

Ontario. Univ. Toronto Stud. biol. Ser. 50 : 1-91 
* 1941b. The Blattaria and Orthoptera of Essex County, Ontario. Contrib. 

R. Ont. Mus. Zool. 20 : 1-32 
*VrcKERY, V. R., & Kevan, D. K. McE. 1967. Records of the Orthopteroid Insects 

in Ontario. Proc. ent. Soc. Ont. 97 : 13-68 
& Johnstone, D. E. 1974. Changes in synonymy in Orchelimum Audinet- 

Serville, 1838 (Grylloptera: Tettigonioidea: Conocephalidae). Can. Ent. 

106 : 423-428 
♦Walker, E. M. 1957. Changes in the Insect Fauna of Ontario (with special 

reference to the Orthoptera) in Urquhart, F. A. (ed.). Changes in the Fauna of 

Ontario. R. Ont. Mus. Univ. Toronto Press, pp. 4-12 



Bulleiin of Zoological Nomenclature 221 

REQUEST FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF SIGNIPHORA GIRAULTI 

CRAWFORD, 1913 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA) AS TYPE-SPECIES 

OF KERRICHIELLA ROSANOV, 1965. Z.N.(S.) 2063 

By B. R. Subba Rao (Conmonwealili Institute of Entomology, London) 

In 1965, Rosanov erected the genus Kerricliiella and designated Signiphora 
giraulli Crawford, 1913 as the type-species. He included no other species. 
The type-species had been described by Crawford (1913) from Trinidad, where 
it was reared from the mealybug Planococcus citri (Risso). When Rosanov 
described Kerrichiella he had a specimen ofTliysanus coleoptratus in front of him 
and assumed that Signiphora giraiilti was the senior synonym of this species. 
He states (1965, p. 509): "The present author [Rosanov] is convinced that 
Thysanus coleoptratus Kerrich (1953), described from the same island and the 
same host [Trinidad and Planococcus citri], is a synonym of S. giraulti Crwf. 
The author has been able to examine the female and male of Thysanus coleop- 
tratus which were kindly sent to M. N. NikoPskaya by Dr. G. J. Kerrich. The 
single-segmented funicle which is unique among the Signiphoridae, the dis- 
tinctive features of the head (the frons overhanging the face and concealing 
the antennae), the unusual shape of the body and the unusually long phallus of 
the male, which are all characters of S. giraulti Crwf appear to warrant the 
establishment of a new genus, wliich has been named after Kerrich". 

During the preparation of a paper on some species of Signiphoridae I 
observed that Rosanov misidentified Signiphora giraulti. Rosanov's des- 
cription of Kerrichiella and the figures presented are in fact of Thysanus coleop- 
tratus Kerrich. On my request, my colleague, Dr. Zdenek Boucek, on his 
recent visit to the United States National Museum compared the paratypes of 
T. coleoptratus with the type of S. giraulti and made notes and free hand drawings 
of the latter species for my use. My studies have revealed that Signiphora 
giraulti Crawford is not only a different species but also belongs to a different 
genus (new) wliich if this application is successful, I will dedicate to Dr. Rosanov. 

Under the Code, Article 70(a), The International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, is therefore requested: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress all previous type designations for 

Kerrichiella Rosanov, 1965, and to designate Thysanus coleoptratus 
Kerrich, 1953, as type-species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the generic 

name Kerrichiella Rosanov, 1965 (gender: feminine) type-species by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Thysanus coleop- 
tratus Kerrich, 1953; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the specific 

name coleoptratus Kerrich, 1953 as published in the binomen Thysanus 
coleoptratus. 

References 
Crawford, J. C. 1913. Descriptions of new Hymenoptera, No. 8. Proc. U.S. 
nat. Miis. 46 : 343-352 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



222 BiiUelin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Kerrich, G. J. 1953. Report on Encyrtidae associated with mealybugs on Cacao 
in Trinidad and some other species related thereto. Bull. eiil. Res. 44 : 789-810 

RosANOV, L. V. 1965. Review of the genera of parasitic Hymenoptera of the family 
Signiphoridae (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). Ent. Obozr. Moscow 44 : 866- 
884 [Translated in Em. Rev. 44 : 508-516] 



Bulletin of Zoological Nonienclalure 223 

ECHIS COLORATUS GUNTHER 1878 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES): 
PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, 

Z.N.(S.) 2064 

By Andrew F. Stimson (British Museum (Natural History), London) 

Giinther (1878: 977) described a new species of carpet viper from Midian, 
Northeastern Arabia under the name Ecliis coloraia. This name, emended to 
Echis coloratus (the gender of Echis being in fact masculine), was used by 
Bouiengcr (1896: 507) for one of the two species that he considered belonged to 
the genus. Since 1896 more than 30 authors in over 50 publications have 
accepted this name without question, among them being the faunal lists of 
Anderson (1896: 83), Flower (1933: 835), Parker (1949: 105). Schmidt & Marx 
(1956: 36), Klemmer (1963: 376), Mendelssohn (1965: 185), Corkill & Cochrane 
(1966: 502) and the medically important papers of Klibansky et al. (1966), 
Moroz et al. (1966), Sandbank & Djaldetti (1966) and Fainaru ct al. (1970). 

2. Echis froenata was described by Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril in 1854 
(p. 1449) and has not subsequently been used as a senior synonym. It was 
placed in the synonymy of Echis carinatus (Schneider 1801 : 285) by Boulenger 
(1896: 505) who appears not to have seen the type specimen. His decision was 
doubtless influenced by the fact that the type locality, Egypt, was outside the 
range then known for Echis coloratus whose presence in that country was not 
established until four years later (Anderson 1900: 419). 

3. Through the courtesy of Professor J. Guibe of the Museum National 
d'Histoire Naturellc, Paris, I have been able to e,\amine the holotype of Echis 
froenata which is clearly not an example of Echis carinatus. It is a female with 
33 dorsals at midbody, 198 ventrals, 45 pairs of subcaudals, 14 supralabials, 3 
series of scales between the eye and supralabials, 19 (right) and 18 (left) scales 
around the eye, no elongate supraocular, 14 scales between the eyes, nostril well 
separated from the rostral and first supraiabial, and obtusely keeled suprace- 
phalic scales. There is little doubt that it is assignable to the species generally 
known as Echis coloratus. 

4. Thus if the Law of Priority were applied the well established name Echis 
coloratus Giinther 1878 would have to be replaced by the almost forgotten 
name Echis froenatus Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril 1854. 

5. This undesirable nomenclatural change could be prevented by placing 
Echis froenata on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology. However, in my opinion this would not be entirely satisfactory. 
Recent taxonomic work has led to the recognition of several subspecies in Echis 
cariitatus and future work may result in a similar splitting of Echis coloratus. 
If this were to occur Echis froenatus could possibly become available for a 
taxon subspecifically, or even specifically, distinct from Echis coloratus. 

6. In the interests of nomenclatural stability the Commission is therefore 
requested to use its plenary powers 

(I ) to place the specific name coloratus Giinther, 1878, as used in the com- 
tDination Echis colorata (sic), on the Official List of Specific Names in 

Bull, zool Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Zoology with the direction that it is to be used in preference to Echis 
froenatiis Dumerii, Bibron & Dumeril by any zoologist who considers 
those names to apply to the same species-group taxon ; 
(2) to place the specific n^.mt froenatus Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1854, 
as used in the combination Echis froenata (sic), on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology with the direction that it not be given 
preference over Echis coloratus GUnther by any zoologist who con- 
siders those names to apply to the same species-group taxon. 

References 
Anderson, J. 1896. A Contribution to the Herpetology of Arabia. 122 pp. London, 

R. H. Porter 
Anderson, J. 1900. On the Presence of £c/;/5 fo/oraa«, Giinther, in Africa. Ann. 

Mag. nat. Hist (7) 6 : 419-425 
BouLENGER, G. A. 1896. Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum (Natural 

History). Vol. 3, XIV + 727 pp. London 
CoRKiLL, N. L. and Cochrane, J. A. 1966. The Snakes of the Arabian Peninsula 

and Socotra. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 62 : 475-506 
Dumeril, A. M. C, Bibron, G. and Dumeril, A. 1854. Erpetologie Generate ou 

Histoire Nalurelle complete des Reptiles. Vol. 7, xvi + 1536 pp. Paris, 

Roret 
Fainaru, M., Manny, N., Hershko, C. and Eisenberg, S. 1970. Defibrination 

following Echis colorata bite in man. Israel J. med. Sci. 6 : 720-725 
Flower, S. S. 1933. Notes on the Recent Reptiles and Amphibians of Egypt, with 

a List of Species recorded from that Kingdom. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. : 735-85 1 
GuNTHER, A. 1878. On Reptiles from Midian collected by Major Burton. Proc. 

zool. Soc. Lond.: 911-91% 
Klemmer, K. 1963. Liste der rezenten Giftschlangen. In Die Giftschlangen der 

Erde: 253-464. Marburg/Lahn 
Klibansky, C, Ozcan, E., Joshua, H., Djaldetti, M., Bessler, H. and de Vries, A. 

1966. Intravascular hemolysis in dogs induced by Echis coloratus venom. 

To.xiconi : 213-221 
Mendelssohn, H. 1965. On the biology of the venomous snakes of Israel. II. 

IsraelJ.Zool. 14 : 185-212 
MoROZ, C, DE Vries, A. and Goldblum, N. 1966. Preparation of horse antiserum 

against Echis colorata (Gunther) venom and determination of its capacity to 

neutralize the toxic, afibrinogenemic and thrombocytopenic actions of Echis 

colorata and Ecliis carinata venoms. Annis Inst. Pasteur, Paris 110 : 276-282 
Parker, H. W. 1949. The Snakes of Somaliland and the Sokotra Islands. Zool. 

Verh. Leiden 6 : 1-115 
Sandbank, U. and Djaldetti, M. 1966. Effect of Echis colorata venom inoculation 

on the nervous system of the dog and guinea pig. Acta neuropatliol. 6 : 61-69 
Schmidt, K. P. and Marx, H. 1956. The Herpetology of Sinai. Eietdiana Zool. 

39 : 21^0 
Schneider, J. G. 1801. Historiae Amphibiorum naturalis et literariae. Vol. 2, 

vi + 364 pp. Jena, F. Frommann 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 225 

APPLICATION FOR A RULING ON THE AVAILABILITY OF 
FIVE SPECIFIC NAMES PROPOSED AS NEW FOR THE GENUS 

HETERODERA A. SCHMIDT, 1871 (NEMATODA) IN 

"A PRELIMINARY KEY TO BRITISH SPECIES OF HETERODERA 

FOR USE IN SOIL EXAMINATION" BY B. A. COOPER, 1955. 

Z.N.{S.) 2066 

By A. R. Stone (Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts., 

England) 

In 1955, in his paper "A preliminary key to British species of Heterodera 
for use in soil examination", B. A. Cooper introduced five new specific names 
in the genus Heterodera A. Schmidt, 1871. The species concerned are 
Heterodera bifenestra, H. timonii, H. melhwoldensis, H. polygoni and H. urticae. 
They are mentioned in the key and in the text, and in some cases, sketches of 
part of one stage of the life history are included but full descriptions, differential 
diagnoses and the naming of type-specimens and type-localities are absent. 
Wherever these specific names are mentioned they always appear in quotes 
e.g. on page 273, lines 9-10, "At cyst formation, the fenestra in H. major, 
schachtii, trifolii, galeopsidis, and 'limonii' appears to be membranous . . .". 

Some nematologists have not accepted these names (e.g. Hesling, 1965) 
while others have accepted them and provided more detailed descriptions 
(e.g. Pogosyan, 1962 and Mathews, 1970 for H. urticae and Kir'janova & Krall, 
I97I for H. bifenestra). So far as I am aware no further descriptions of H. 
limonii, H. methwoldensis and H. polygoni have been published. 

I believe that Cooper's publication may not meet the requirement for 
description of new species, if so the five species names as published in 1955 
are unavailable. The later descriptions of urticae and bifenestra published 
by the other authors are adequate except that type-specimens are not desig- 
nated. Pogosyan (1962) commented that Cooper had designated a new 
Heterodera species H. urticae but that a full description and differential diag- 
nosis were absent and gave a description of "Heterodera urticae Cooper, 
1955" based on material collected in Armenia. Mathews (1970) also provided 
a full description using Cooper's material. Mathews pointed out that differen- 
ces exist between the nematode described by Pogosyan and that called H. 
"urticae" by Cooper. In fact the differences between the two descriptions 
are substantial and include a number of characters considered to be of impor- 
tance in the differentiation of species in this genus (notably body and stylet 
length of second stage larvae, the position of the dorsal oesophageal gland 
duct junction in second stage larvae and the fenestration of the cysts). From 
her description Pogosyan's material seems close to that of H. humuli Filipjev, 
1934 but she states that it differs from the latter species in having smaller eggs 
and cysts. In fact the morphometries in Pogosyan's account fall within the 
ranges reported in the literature for H. humuli (notably by Franklin, 1951, 
Simon, 1958, De Grisse and Gillard, 1963, and Sen and Jensen, 1967) and the 
cyst fenestration also resembles that of H. humuli. Pogosyan does however 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

report hosts for this nematode which have not been reported elsewhere for 
H. Iiumuli or H. urticae. Apparently Pogosyan"s description is of material 
properly called H. luimuli and is not the same nematode referred to by Cooper 
and Mathews as H. urticae. 

In a letter to me of 6th March 1974, Mr. R. V. Melville made the following 
points: "The date of the paper is certainly important, since it is only after I960 
that names proposed conditionally (as these are) are unavailable under the 
Code (see Article 15). In my viev/ (though I admit that there is room for other 
views), the names ought to be treated as unavailable for the following reasons: 

1 . The author states on page 276 that the names are proposed conditionally 
and may not be those adopted in the "ultimate description". It therefore follows 
that he did not consider his 1955 publication as sufficient to make the names 
available. 

2. The editor, Dr. Kevan, himself no mean nomenclaturist, says in a 
footnote to page 276 that the names should not, in fact, be regarded as having 
any nomenclatorial status as of that date (1955). 

3. It is therefore possible to consider that the names were "proposed for 
other than taxonomic use" in 1955 (namely, as temporary and provisional 
means of reference). As such, they would be excluded under Article 1 of the 
Code.^ 

4. The author's reference to an "ultimate description" suggests that he 
does not consider his 1955 paper as satisfying the requirements of Article 13 
(a)(i). This provision is a fruitful source of controversy: in effect it throws on 
the individual zoologist the responsibility of observing the highest standards 
of descriptive work practised in his group. I am therefore guessing here at 
what was in the author's mind. I think that in some groups a key would be 
thought to be just the kind of thing to satisfy that provision". 

In Mr. Melville's view therefore, the names in question become available 
only when they have been made so by later authors; and they should be cited 
with those authors and the dates of the work in question, not with "Cooper, 
1955". 

Therefore, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is 
formally requested to: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name urticae Pogosyan, 1962 

for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and for the Law of 
Homonymy; 

(2) declare that the specific names bifenestra, limonii, metlinolclensis,polrgoni, 

and urticae as published in the binomina Heterodera bifenestra, 
Heterodera liinonii, Heterodera metlmoldensis, Heterodera polygoni 
and Heterodera urticae in the paper by B. A. Cooper, 1955 "A pre- 
liminary key to British species of Heterodera for use in soil examina- 
tion", pages 269-280, in D. K. McE. Kevan (Ed.) Soil Zoology, 
Proceedings of the University of Nottingham Second Easter School in 
Agricultural Science, Butterworths, are not available for use in 

1 See Sabrosky, C. W. (1972, Bull. zool. Nomcncl. 29 : 131-134). 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 227 

zoological nomenclature, by reason of the fact that they were not 
proposed for taxonomic use; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following 

names: 

(a) urticae Mathews, 1970 as published in the binomen Heterodera 

urticae ; 
(h) hifenestra Kir'yanova & Krall, 1971, as published in the binomen 

Heterodera hifenestra : 

(4) to place; 

(a) the specific name urticae Pogosyan, 1962, suppressed under the 

plenary powers in (1) above, and published in the binomen 
Heterodera urticae on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Specific Names in Zoology, and 

(b) the names declared unavailable in (2) on the Official Index of 

Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

References 
Cooper, B. A. 1965. A preliminary key to British species of Heterodera for use 

in soil examination. So/7 zoology: Proceedings of the University of Nottingham 

Second Easter School in Agricultural Science, 1955,- ed. D. K. McE. Kevan. 

Butterworths, Land. : 269-280 
De Grisse, a., & GiLL.a>RD, A. 1963. Morphology and biology of hop cyst eelvvorm 

(Heterodera hiimuli Filipjev, 1934). Nematologica 9 : 41^8 
Franklin, M. T. 1951. The cyst-forming species of Heterodera. Commonwealth 

Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, 147 pp. 
Hesling, J. J. 1965. Plant Nematology, Chapter 7. Heterodera, Morphology 

and Identification. Tech. Bull. Minist. Agric. Fisli Fd. No. 7, 2nd Ed.: 103-130 
Kir'yanova, E. S., & Krall, E. L. 1971. [Parasitic nematodes of plants and their 

control. Vol. If). Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka", 522 pp. 
Mathews, H. J. P. 1970. Morphology of the nettle cyst nematode Heterodera 

tnticae Cooper, 1955. Nematologica 16 : 503-510 
Pogosyan, E. E. 1962. [The incidence of nematodes of the family Heterodcridae 

(Nematoda) in the Armenian S.S.R.]. Nematodes harmful to agriculture and 

tlieir control. Proc. 5th all-union conference plivtohclnn'ntliolou'ists, Samarkand, 

1960: 228-250 
Sen, a. K., & Jensen, H. J. 1967. An amended description of larvae and males of 

Heterodera hamuli Filipjev, 1934. Nematologica 13 : 378-384 
Simon, L. 1958. Nematologische Untersuchungen an Hopfen. II. Zur Mor- 
phologic und Biologie von Heterodera huimili Filipjev, 1934. Nematologica 

3 : 269-273 



228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

THRIPS RUFA GMELIN, 1790 (INSECTA, THYSANOPTERA, 

THRIPIDAE): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY 

POWERS SO AS TO VALIDATE T. RUFA HALIDAY, 1836. Z.N.(S.) 2067 

By L. A. Mound & J. M. Palmer (British Museum (Natural History), London) 

1. The Commission is requested to suppress the name Thrips rufa Gmelin, 
1790, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy 
so as to validate the name Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufa Haliday, 1836. 

2. The complete reference in Gmelin (1790: 2224) is "Thr. rufa. v. Gleichen 
Neustes in Reich der Pflanz. tA6.f.6J. Habitat in tritici spicis, an forsan larva 
minutissimaeT' (The gender of Thrips is, however, masculine). 

3. Haliday (1836: 445) erected Aptinothrips as a sub-genus of Thrips with 
an unequivocal definition considering that he is referring only to the British 
fauna: "antennae articulus 6"'s. apice attenuatus, absque stylo articulato". 
Haliday placed two species in this subgenus "Thr. Apt. rufa" [sic] and "Thr. 
Apt. nitudula" [sic], and these were distinguished by their colour differences. 

4. Under the name rufa, Haliday gives the references to Gmelin and Gleichen 
referred to above (2), and also the only subsequent reference; Nicholson (1805: 
224, fig. 1), which is an unnamed figure. 

5. All subsequent authors have used the name rufa in the sense of Haliday 
but have referred to it as "rufa Gmelin". This species is the type-species of the 
genus Aptinothrips by subsequent designation by Westwood (1838, p. 46). 
It is widespread in the temperate parts of the world where it is a minor pest of 
cereals and grasses, and there is a considerable body of literature referring to it. 

6. Unfortunately the figure in Gleichen referred to by Gmelin is a clear 
coloured illustration of a bright red larva belonging to the family Phlaeo- 
thripidae, whereas rufa Haliday belongs in the Thripidae. The fact that rufa 
Gmelin was not an Aptinothrips in the sense of Haliday was first pointed out by 
Trybom (1894: 43) but this was ignored by subsequent authors. Judging from 
the host plant the figure by Gleichen probably depicts the common European 
cereal pest Haplothrips tritici Kurdjumov, 1912, although there are other 
species associated with Gramineae in Europe. 

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore 
requested : 

(1) to use its plenary powers to: 

(a) suppress the specific name rufa Gmelin, 1790, as published in the 

binomen Thrips rufa for the purposes of both the Law of 

Priority and the Law of Homonymy and 
(b)to set aside all previous type fixations for Aptinothrips Haliday, 

1836 and to designate Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufa Haliday, 1836 

as type-species ; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic 

name Aptinothrips Haliday, 1836 (gender: masculine), type-species 
Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufa Haliday, 1 836 designated under the plenary 
powers in 1(b) above; 

Bull. zool. Nomend., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclalure 119 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the specific 

name rufus Haliday, emendation of Thrips (Aptinoihrips) nifa Haliday, 
1836; 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names, 

rufa Gmelin, 1790 as suppressed in (l)(a) above. 

References 
Gleichen, W. F. von. 1764. Das neuests aus dem Reiche der Pflaiizeii . . .Nurnberg. 

50 pis. col. [Original not studied, only available copy French translation, 

1790, Nuremberg] 
Gmelin, J. F. 1790. Caroli a Liime Systema Naturae. Tom. 1. Pars. IV: 

1517-2224 
Haliday, A. H. 1836. An epitome of the British genera in the order Thysanoptera, 

with indications of a few of the species. Entomological Magazine 3 : 439- 

451 
KuRDJUMOv, N. B. 1912. Two Antltothiips injurious to the cereals (with description 

of a new species) [in Russian]. Trudy Poltavskoi Selsko-Khoziaistvenno 

opytnoi Standi 6 : 1 -44 
Nicholson, W. 1805. A Journal of Natural Philosophy, Chemistry and the Arts. 

J. not. Philos. 12 : 224. PI. VIII. Fig. 1 
Trybom, F. 1894. Jakttagelser cm Blasfotingar (Physapoder) fran Sommaren 

1893. Ent. Tidskr. 1894-5 : 41-58 
Westwood, J. O. 1838. Synopsis of the genera of British Insects. In: Westwood, 

J. O. 1840. An introduction to modern British Insects. London 



230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

OF THE NAME XYLEBORUS EICHHOFF, 1864 (INSECTA: 

COLEOPTERA, SCOLYTIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2069 

By Stephen L. Wood (Department oj Zoology, Brigham Young University, 

Provo, Utah) 

Phloeotrogus Motschulsky (1863 : 512) was described to include P. oblique- 
caudata Motschulsky, 1863, and as a doubtfully placed species, Boslrichus 
mutilatus Walker, 1859. Since the latter species clearly is a species inquirenda, 
it is automatically excluded from consideration as the type-species of the 
genus (Article 67h): consequently, Phloeotrogus is monotypic. The type- 
specimen of obliquecaudata was examined (Wood, 1969 : 119) and was found 
to be congeneric with Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864; it belongs to the same sub- 
generic group as Ambrosioclmus Hopkins, 1915. 

2. More than 1500 nominal species have been assigned to Xyleborus. 
Only two species have been assigned to Phloeotrogus and these have been either 
incorrectly identified or cited a total of four times as species of Xyleborus. 
Xyleborus contains numerous species of economic importance and has been 
cited in the literature many thousands of times. 

3. Xyleborus is the type-genus of the family-group name xyleborini, 
originally established as xyleboridae Eichhoff, 1878; subjective junior synonyms 
include Anisandrus Ferrari, 1867, Anaeretus Duges, 1888, Progciiius Blandford, 
1896, Mesoscolylus Brown, 1904, Cyclohipidion Hagedorn, 1912, Heteroborips 
Reitter, 1913, Xyleborips Reitter, 1913, Euwallacea Hopkins, 1915, Ambrosio- 
dnnis Hopkins, 1915, Terininalinus Hopkins, 1915, Boro.xyloii Hopkins, 1915, 
Crypto.xyleborus Schedl, 1937, and Streptocrainis Schedl, 1939, There are no 
family-group names based on Phloeotrogus. Xyleborus is already on the Official 
List of Generic Names in Zoology, Name No. 1789 (Opinion 848). 

4. In order to preserve nomenclatural stability, the International Com- 
mission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: 

(1) to exercise its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Phloeotrogus 

Motschulsky, 1863, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not 
for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy: 

(2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names 

in Zoology the generic name Phloeotrogus Motschulsky, 1863, sup- 
pressed under the plenary powers in (I) above; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology nionographus 

Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Bostrichus nionographus 
(type-species of Xyleborus. 1864). 

Referencis 
Eichhoff, W. J. 1864. Ueber die Mundtheile und die Fiihlerblldung der europais- 

chen Xylophagi sens, strict. Bcrl. Ent. Z. 8 : 17^6 
Lacordairf, J. T. 1866. Histoire naturelie des insectes: Genera des coleopteres 

ou expose methodique et critique de tous les genres proposes jusqu"ici dans 

cet ordre d'insectes. Paris. Vol. 7, 620 p. 

Bull. zool. Nomeiwl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



Bulleliu of Zoological Nonwnclalure 231 

MoTSCHULSKY, V. VON. 1860. Colcopteres de la Siberie orientale et en particulier 
des rives de TAmour. In: Schrenck, Reisen und forschungen im Amur-Lande 
2 : 77-257 

1863. Essai d"un catalogue des inscctes de Pile Ceylan. Bull. Soc. Imp. Nai. 

Moscoii7>6 : 421^32 

1866. Essai d"un catalogue des insectes de I'ile Ceylan. Bull. Soc. Imp. Nal. 

Moscoii 39 : 393-446 

Wood, S. L. 1969. New synonymy and records of Platypodidae and Scolytidae 
(Coleoptera). C/. Basin Nut. 29 : 113-128 

CITATION.S OF XYLEBORUS EICHHOFF, 1864 FN ACCORDANCE 
WITH ARTICLE 79(b) 

Balachowsky, A. 1949. Coleopteres Scolytides. Fainie Fiance 50 : 22\ . 
Bright, D. E., Jr. 1968. Review of the tribe Xyleborini in America north of 

Mexico (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can. Em. 100 : 1296 
Brovvni;, F. G. 1961. The biology of Malayan Scolytidae and Platypodidae. 

Malay. Forest Ins. No. 22: 100 
Eggers, H. 1929. Zur Synonymic der Borkenkafer (Ipidae, Col.). IVieii. ent. 

Ztg. 46 : 47 
MuRAYAMA, J. J. 1961. Check list of the Ipidae and Platypodidae from Kyushu. 

Entomology Laboratory, University of Osaka Prefecture, Publication No. 

6 :97. 
NoBucHi, A. 1969. A comparative morphological study of the proventriculus in 

the adult of the superfamily Scolytoidea (Coleoptera). Bulletin of the Govern- 
ment Forest E.\perimenl Station, Tokyo 224 ; 61 
NuNBERG, M. 1963. Die Gattung .Xvleborus EichhofT (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). 

Aimals Mas. r. Afr. cent. (.Sci. Zool., Ser. 8), No. 1 15, 127 p. 
ScHEDL, K. E. 1962. Scolytidae und Platypodidae Afrikas. Rerta Ent. Mocamb. 

5 : 102 
Spessivtseff, p. 1925. Fam. Barkborrar: 28 Coleoptera. Svensk Inseklfaiina 

9(3) : 179 
Wood, S. L. 1974. New species of American bark beetles (Scolytidae: Coleoptera). 

Brigham Young Univ. Sci. Bull. (Biol. Ser.) 19(1) : 32 

Note: — This application is supported by Prof. Dr. Karl E. Schedl (Lienz, 
Austria); Prof. Dr. Ant. Pfeffer (Prague, Czechoslovakia); J. J. Menier (Museum 
National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France). 



» 



232 BuUelin of Zoological Nomenclature 

PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

OF THE NAME DRYOCOETES EICHHOFF, 1864 

(INSECTA: COLEOPTERA, SCOLYTIDAE) Z N.(S.) 2070 

By Stephen L. Wood (Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, 

Provo, Utah) 

Motschulsky (I860 : 155) named and characterized the genus Anodius to 
which he assigned Bostriclius autograplms Ratzeburg, 1837, B. semicastaneus 
Mannerheim, 1852, Hylesinus rillosus Fabricius, 1792 and B. monographus 
Fabricius, 1792. The original description of the genus was cited once by 
Ferrari (1867 ; 24) and Motschulsky (1863, 1866) assigned four species to 
Anodius; except for these citations the genus is unknown in the literature. The 
original description of the genus and the type material of these subsequently 
assigned species were unknown to taxonomic specialists on the group until 1968 
(Wood, 1969 : 117). Because of the antiquity of the name and its apparent 
involvement in synonymy a successful search was made for the original des- 
cription of Anodius. A type-species has not been designated for Anodius. 

2. The first three of the four original species assigned to Anodius are 
currently treated in the genus Dryocoetes EichhofF, 1864; the fourth species 
is in Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864. Since autograplms, the first species assigned to 
Anodius by Motschulsky, is the type-species of the genus Dryocoetes and 
monographus, the fourth original species assigned to it, is the type-species of 
Xyleborus, a nomenclatural change is unavoidable if the Law of Priority is 
applied. 

3. In order to avoid a nomenclatural conflict with Xyleborus, I designate 
Bostrichus autographus Ratzeburg as the type-species of Anodius Motschulsky. 
Through this action Anodius becomes a senior objective synonym of Dryocoetes 
Eichhoff. 

4. Dryocoetes is essentially world-wide in distribution, it contains more 
than 100 nominal species, and its taxonomic status has not been questioned 
since it was originally named. The literature contains several thousand 
references to Dryocoetes and none to Anodius since 1866. The family-group 
name dryocoetini, originally established as dryocoetoideae Lindemann, 1876, 
was based on Dryocoetes; no family-group name has been based on Anodius. 

5. For the above reasons the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature is asked : 

( 1 ) to exercise its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Anodius 

Motschulsky, 1860, for purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for 
the purposes of the Law of Homonymy ; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic 

name Dryocoetes Eichhoff, 1864 (gender: masculine), type-species 
Bostrichus autographus Ratzeburg, 1837, subsequent designation by 
Hopkins, 1914; 

Bull. :ool. Notmiicl.. Vol. .11, Part 4. December 1974. 



BuUclin of Zoological Nomenclature 233 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 

Zoology the generic name Anodius Motschulsky, 1860, suppressed 
under the plenary powers in (1) above; 

(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology autographus 

Ratzeburg, 1837, as published in the binomen Bostrichus autographus 
(type-species of Dryocoetes Eichhoff, 1864). 

References 
Eichhoff, W. J. 1864. Ueber die Mundtheile und die Ftihlerbildung dcr europais- 

chen Xylophagi sens, strict. Berl. Ent. Z. 8 : 1 7-46 
Hopkins, A. D. 1914. List of generic names and their type-species In the Coleop- 
terous superfamily Scolytoidea. Proc. U.S. iialn. Miis. 48 : 115-136 
Motschulsky, V. von. 1860. Coleopteres de la Siberie orientale et en particulier 

des rives de TAmour. In: Schrenck, Reisen und Forschungen im Amur- 

Lande 2 : 77-257 
1863. Essai d"un catalogue des insectes de Tile Ceylan. Bull. Sac. Imp. Nat. 

Moscoii 36 : 421-432 
1 866. Essai d"un catalogue des insectes de Tile Ceylan. Bull. Soc. Imp. Nat. 

Moscou 39 : 393-446 
Wood, S. L. 1969. New synonymy and records of Platypodidae and Scolytidae 

(Coleoptera). Gt. Basin Nat. 29 : 1 13-128 

CITATIONS OF DRYOCOETES EICHHOFF, 1864 IN ACCORDANCE 
WITH ARTICLE 79(b) 

Balachowsky, A. 1949. Coleopteres Scolytides. Faune France 50 : Ml 

Bright, D. E., Jr. 1963. Bark beetles of the genus Dryocoetes (Coleoptera: Scoly- 
tidae) in North America. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 56 : 103 

Browne, F. G. 1961. The biology of Malayan Scolytidae and Platypodidae. 
Malay. Forest Ins. No. 22 : 83 

Eggers, H. 1929. Zur Synonymic der Borkenkafer (Ipidae, Col.). Wien. ent. 
Zig. 46 : 43 

Ferrari, J. A. 1867. Die Forst- und Baumzuchtschiidlichen Borkenkafer. Wien, 
Ceroid. 96 p. 

MuRAYAMA, J. J. 1957. Studies in the scolytid-fauna of the northern half of the 
Far East. Ill Dryocoetini. Bulletin of the Faculty of Agriculture, Yamaguti 
University 8 : 592 

NoBUCHi, A. 1969. A comparative morphological study of the proventriculus in 
the adult of the superfamily Scolytoidea (Coleoptera). Bulletin of the Govern- 
ment Forest Experiment Station, Tokyo 224 : 61 

Nunberg, M. 1954. Korniki-Scolytidae, Wyrynnikl-Platypodldae. Klucze Oznacz. 
Owad. Pol. 19 : 55 

ScHEDL, K. E. 1962. Scolytidae und Platypodidae Afrlkas. Revta Ent. Mofamb. 
4:655 

Spessivtseff, p. 1925. Fam. Barkborrar: 28 Coleoptera. Svensk Insektfauna 
9(3) : 174 

Wood, S. L. 1961. A key to the North American genera of Scolytidae. Coleopts. 
Bull. 15 : 46 

Note: — This application is supported by Prof. Dr. Karl E. Schedl (Lienz, 
Austria); Prof. Dr. Ant. Pfeffer (Prague, Czechoslovakia); J. J. Menier (Museum 
National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France). 



I 



234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

OF THE NAME LIPARTHRUM WOLLASTON, 1864 

(INSECTA: COLEOPTERA, SCOLYTIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2071 

By Stephen L. Wood {Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, 

Provo, Utah) 

Wollaston (1854 : 294) named and described the genus Leiparthrum and 
designated L. bituberculatum Wollaston as the type-species. Wollaston (1857 : 
97; 1861 : 39) subsequently cited this name on two occasions, then later he 
(Wollaston, 1864 : 265) used the emendation Liparthrum for this genus, without 
a description or explanation, but he included a citation of the 1854 description 
of Leiparthrum. The literature published since 1864 contains about 150 
references to this genus and only one reference (Bright, 1968) to Leiparthrum. 

2. This genus contains about 25 species that are scattered throughout the 
tropical and subtropical areas of the world and in the temperature region in 
Europe. Apparently all species are of minor economic importance. Three 
subjective synonyms of this genus include: Erineosimis Blackman, 1920, 
Phloeochilus Schedl, 1953, and, possibly, Phloeotrypetus Wood, 1960. Family- 
group names have not been based on either generic name. 

3. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked : 

( 1 ) to exercise its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Leiparthrum 

Wollaston, 1854, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for 
the purposes of the Law of Homonymy; 

(2) to rule that the generic name Liparthrum Wollaston, 1864, is an un- 

justified emendation oi Leiparthrum Wollaston, 1854; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic 

name Liparthrum Wollaston, 1864, (gender: neuter), type-species by 
original designation, Leiparthrum bituberculatum Wollaston, 1854; 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 

Zoology the generic name Leiparthrum Wollaston, 1854, suppressed 
under the plenary powers in (1) above; 

(5) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology bituberculatum 

Wollaston, 1854, as published in the binomen Leiparthrum bituber- 
culatum (type-species oi Liparthrum Wollaston). 

References 
Bright, D. E., Jr. 1968. Review of the genus Leiparthrum in North America, 

with a description of one new species (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Can. Enl. 

100 : 636-639 
Wollaston, T. V. 1854. Insecta Maderensia, being an account of the insects of 

the islands of the Madeiran group. Van Voorst; London. 634 p. 

1857. Catalogue of the coleopterous insects of Madeira in the collection of 

the British Museum. London. 234 p. 

1861. On the £«/j/;of6/fl-infesting Coleoptera of the Canary Islands. Trans. 

enl. Sac. London, (ser. 3), 1(2) : 1-55 

1864. Catalogue of the coleopterous insects of the Canaries in the collection 

of ihe British Museum. London. 648 p. 

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 31, Part 4. December 197-1. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 235 

CITATIONS OF LIPARTHRUM WOLLASTON, 1864 IN ACCORDANCE 
WITH ARTICLE 79(b) 
Balachowsky, A. 1949. Coleopteres Scolytides. Famie France 5(i : \S2 
Eggers, H. 1927. Seltene unci neue palaearktische Borkenkiifer VI. Em. Bl. Biol. 
Sysl. Kiifer 23 : 121 

1928. Ein neues Lipanhrum (Col., Ipid.) von den Canarischen Inseln. Tijcl- 

schr. Eiit. 71 : 183 

LiNDBERG, H. 1953. Zweiter Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Kaferfauna der Kanarischen 
Inseln. Societas Scientiarum Fennica Commentationcs Biologicae 13 : 18 

Pfeffer, a. 1941. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Gattung Liparthniiu (Col., Ipidae). 
Z. aiigew. Em. 28 : 388 

1955. Scolytoidea: Coleoptera. Fauna CSR 6 : 14S 

ScHEDL, K. E. 1959. Bestimmungstabellen Palaearktischer Borkenkafer IX. 
Societas Scientiarum Fennica Commentationcs Biologicae 22 : 36 

1963. Zur Synonymic der Borkenkafer IX. Ent. Abh. Mus. Tierk. Dresden 

28 : 263 

Wood, S. L. 1957. Distributional notes on and synonymies of some North Ameri- 
can Scolytidae (Coleoptera). Can. Em. 89 : 399 

1959. New records and species of Arizona bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scoly- 
tidae). Gt. Basin Nat. 19 : 57 

Note: — This appHcation is supported by Prof. Dr. Karl E. Schedl (Lienz, 
Austria); Prof. Dr. Ant. Pfeffer (Prague, Czechoslovakia); J. J. Menier (Museum 
National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France). 



236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

OF THE NAME PHLOEOSINUS CHAPUIS, 1869 

(INSECTA: COLEOPTERA, SCOLYTIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2072 

By Stephen L. Wood {Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, 

Provo, Utah) 

The genus Olonthogaster Motschulsky (1866 : 401) was named and des- 
cribed for O. nitidicollis Motschulsky, 1866, and O. nudifrons Motschulsky, 
1866. This genus and the two species, both from Ceylon, have been listed in 
an incerta sedis category by all authors from 1866 to 1969, because the types 
were inaccessible to specialists (Wood, 1969). Hopkins (1914 : 126) designated 
nitidicollis as the type-species of this genus. I examined the holotypes of both 
species and found them to be congeneric with Phloeosiinis Chapuis, 1869. 

2. The genus Phloeosinus is world-wide in distribution and includes 
approximately 140 nominal species, several of which are of moderate economic 
importance. Several thousand references to this genus appear in the literature. 
The name Olonthogaster has, in effect, been a forgotten name in the literature 
since its original publication. As indicated above, fewer than a dozen references 
exist and all since 1866 refer to it as an unknown genus. 

3. The family-group name phloeosinini employed by some authors, 
originally established as Phloeosinides Niisslin, 1912, was based on the name 
Phloeosinus. Olonthogaster has not been used as the type-genus of any family- 
group name. Phloeosinus has the following subjective junior synonyms: 
Phloeosinites Hagedorn, 1906, and Phloeosinopsis Schedl, 1936. 

4. In the interest of preserving nomenclatural stability, the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested : 

(1) to exercise its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Olonthogaster 

Motschulsky, 1866, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not 
for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy. 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic 

name Phloeosinus Chapuis, 1869, (gender: masculine), type-species 
Hvlesimis thujae Perris, 1855, subsequent designation by Hopkins, 
1914; 

(3) to place on the OflScial Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 

Zoology the generic name Olonthogaster Motschulsky, 1866, sup- 
pressed under the plenary powers in (I) above; 

(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology thujae Perris, 

1855, as published in the binomen Hylesiinis thujae (type-species of 
Phloeosiinis Chapuis, 1869). 

References 
Chapuis, F. 1869. Synopsis des Scolytides. Desoer: Paris. 61 p. 
Hopkins, A. D. 1914. List of generic names and their type-species in the Coleop- 
terous superfamily Scolytoidea. Proc. U.S. iiatn. Mus. 48 : 115-136 
Motschulsky, V. von. 1866. Essai d"un catalogue des insectes de Pile Ceylan. 
Bull. Sac. Imp. Nat. Moscou 39 : 393^146 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237 

CITATIONS OF PHLOEOSINUS CHAPUIS, 1869 IN ACCORDANCE 
WITH ARTICLE 79(b) 

Balachowsky, A. 1949. Coleopteres Scolytides. Faiine France 5Q : \\1 
Blackman, M. W. 1942. Revision of the genus Phloeosiniis Chapuis in North 
America (Coleoptera, Scolytidae). Proc. U.S. natn. Mas. 92 : 397 

1943. New species of American scolytoid beetles, mostly neotropical. Proc. 

U.S. nam. Mils. 94 ; 397 

Browne, F. G. 1961. The biology of Malayan Scolytidae and Platypodidae. 

Malay. Forest Ins. No. 22 : 61 
Bruck, C. R. 1931. Two new species of bark beetles of the genus Pliloeosinus 

Chapuis. Pan-Pacif. Ent. 7 : 126 
Eggers, H. 1929. Seltene und neue palaearktische Borkenkafer VI. Ent. Bl. Biol, 

Syst. kiiferlT, : 120 

1931. Zur Synonymie der Borkenkafer (Ipidae, Col.) II. Wicn. ent. Ztg. 

Al : 186 

SCHEDL, K. E. 1959. A check list of the Scolytidae and Platypodidae (Coleoptera) 
of Ceylon, with descriptions of new species and biological notes. Trans. R. 
ent. Soc. Land. Ill : 472 

1962. Scolytidae und Platypodidae Afrikas. Revta Ent. Motamb. 3 : 130 

Wood, S. L. 1960. Coleoptera: Platypodidae and Scolytidae. Insects Micronesia 

18(1) : 15 

Note: — This application is supported by Prof. Dr. Karl E. Schedl (Lienz, 
Austria); Prof. Dr. Ant. Pfeffer (Prague, Czechoslovakia); J. J. Menier (Museum 
National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France). 



I 



238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

CLINOCARDIUM CALIFORNIENSE (DESHAYES, 1839) 

(MOLLUSCA: CARDIIDAE): PROPOSED VALIDATION 

UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2073 

By Alexander I. Kafanov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, 
Leningrad, U.S.S.R.) 

Clinocardium californiense (Deshayes, 1839, Rev. Zool. Soc. Cuvierienne, 
vol. 2, p. 360; vol. 4, 1841, pi. 47) is a name which has firmly entered world 
literature on Bivalvia for designating a common species of shallow water 
CARDIIDAE. The geographic range for this species is from the mainland of 
Asia and the islands of Akkeshi and Hokkaido, Japan, northeast to Icy Cape 
and Sitka, Alaska (A, M. Keen, 1937, An Abridged Check List and Bibliography 
of West North America Marine Molhisca, p. 19; A. M. Keen, 1954, Bull. Amer. 
Paleont., vol. 35, no. 153, p. 20). However we have established as a result of a 
revision of cardiids from the cold and temperate waters of the Northern 
Hemisphere that Cardiuni boreale Broderip and Sowerby, 1829 non Reeve, 
1845, described ten years earlier is conspecific with this species and must be 
recognized as its senior synonym. Reeve's proposal was of a different species; 
it was not a mis-identification of the Broderip and Sowerby species. 

2. Cardium boreale Broderip and Sowerby, 1829, Zool. J., vol. 4, p. 368, 
non Reeve, 1845, Conch. Icon., 2, Cardium, pi. 22, fig. 131, was described from 
the area of Arctic Coasts of Alaska (Icy Cape) but it has not been figured and 
the description is insufficient for certain identification of the shell. The type 
material of Cardium boreale is most probably lost. To judge by the name of 
the paper which contains the original description of this species ("Observations 
on new or interesting Mollusca contained, for the most part, in the Museum of 
the Zoological Society") we can suppose that the type specimens of Cardium 
boreale could be deposited in the collection of the Zoological Society which 
had all been dispersed by 1851. In a personal communication of April 6, 
1973 with reference to the repository of this species. Dr. P. J. C. Russell (The 
Marine Laboratory, Hayling Island, Hants, U.K.) however, wrote to me and 
said the following: "According to P. Chalmers Mitchell (1929) in Centenary 
History of the Zoological Society of London (Published by The Zoological 
Society of London), the museum collection was dispersed to the British Museum 
and "to other Institutions" — none of which is named. I have been to the 
British Museum (Natural History) and none of the type material listed by 
Broderip and Sowerby (1829) is at present in their collection . . . According 
to one of the most longstanding workers at the Department of Mollusca (B.M.), 
she has never seen any Zoological Society labels from which observation she 
infers that no molluscan material was presented to the British Museum." 

3. Only Clinocardium cUiatwn (Fabricius, 1780) and CI. californiense 
(Deshayes, 1839) are known from the area of Icy Cape out of the recent and 
late-Quarternary molluscs of the family cardiidae which can be comparable 
with Cardium boreale Broderip and Sowerby, 1829. They are very different one 
from another in the character of the external shell sculpture: Clinocardium 

Bull. zool. Nomenci, Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



Build in oj Zoological Nomenclature 239 

ciliatum has relatively sparse radial ribs, triangular in cross-section, which bear a 
thin periostracal fringe while Clinocanlium californicnse has numerous radial 
ribs, rounded in cross-section, without a periostracal fringe. The character of 
the external sculpture of clinocardiums is a stable morphological indication 
and can serve even for demarcation of the taxons of the generic rank (Makiyama, 
1934, Mem. Coll. Sci. Kyoto Imper. Univ. (ser. B) 10 (2) pp. 127-167; A. I. 
Kafanov, 1974). It follows from the original description that Cardiuin boreale 
has "numerous close-set rounded ribs'", which allows us to identify it with 
Clinocardium californicnse (Deshayes, 1839) with assurance. 

4. The name Cardiuin boreale Broderip and Sowerby, 1829 has not been 
used as a senior synonym in the primary zoological literature for more than 
fifty years and according to the Article 23 (a-b) of the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature, I request its suppression. The list of references 
required for californiense in accordance with Article 79(b) is given at the end 
of the paper. 

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of 

Priority but not those of the Law of Homonymy, the specific name 
boreale Broderip et Sowerby, 1829 non Reeve, 1845, as published 
in the binomen Cardiuin boreale; 

(2) to place the following specific name on the OflScial List of Specific Names 

in Zoology: californiense Deshayes, 1839, as published in the binomen 
Cardiuin californiense: 

(3) to place on the Oflicial Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 

Zoology the name boreale Broderip and Sowerby, 1 829, as suppressed 

under (1) above. 
Prof. A. Myra Keen (Stanford University, U.S.A.) and Prof. Ya. I. Starobo- 
gatov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, U.S.S.R.), both of whom I 
consulted, support this proposal. 

RErtRENCES 

The following list of references complies with Article 79(b), for califuniieiise Deshayes, 

1839: 

KURODA, T., & KOBA, K. 1933. Bull, biogeogr. Soc. Japan 4(2) : 163 (Cardiiini 

(Cerastodcrma)) 
Razin, A. I. 1934. Izr. tikliookeaii. nauchno. issled. Inst. ryb. Klioz. Okeanogr. 

8 : 79 {Cardiuin (Ceraslodernta)) 
Larrocque, A. 1953. Bull, natii. Mus. Can. (Biol. Scr. No. 44) 129 : 63 (Cliito- 

cardiuin) 
Keen, A. M. 1954. Bull. Am. Pakonl. 35 (No. 153) : 20 {Clinocardium) 
Hade, T. 1955. Pubis Akkcslii mar. biol. Sin No. 4: 11, pi. 1, fig. 5 {Clinocardium) 
Kir A, T. 1955. Coloured Illustrations of the Shells of Japan Hoikusha, Osaka, 

p. Ill {Clinocardium) 
Yamamoto, G., & Habe, T. 1959. Bull. biol. Stn Asamushi 9(3) : 93, pi. 7, fig. 21 

{Clinocardium) 
Kir A, T. 1962. Shells of the Western Pacific in colour Hoikusha Publishing Co. 

Ltd., Osaka: 156, pi. 56, fig. 4 {Clinocardium) 
Habe, T., & Ito, K. 1965. Shells of the IVorld in colour. Volume I: The Northern 

Pacific, Hoikusha, Osaka: 132, pi. 44, fig. 2 {Clinocardium) 
GoLlKOv, A. N., & ScARLATO, O. A. 1967. Trudy Zool. Inst. Leningr. 42 : 106, 

pi. 7, fig. 5 {Cliiwcariliiim) 



240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

PLYCTOLOPHUS DUCROPS BONAPARTE, 1850 (AVES): 

PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS 

AND VALIDATION OF CACATUA DUCORPSII PUCHERAN, 1853. 

Z.N.(S.) 2074 

By E. Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, N. Y., 

U.S.A.) and J. M. Forshaw (CSIRO, Division of Wildlife Research, 

Canberra, Australia) 

Ducorps' Cockatoo is a common parrot of the Solomon Islands, well- 
known in the avicultural literature. Currently it is placed in the genus Cacatua. 
The specific name has appeared as DuCrops (once), ducorpsii (the usual spelling, 
especially during the 19th century), ducorpsi (a fairly common variant or 
emendation), ducropsii (a very rare error or emendation), ducrops (very rarely; 
the modern orthography of DuCrops), and ducorps (a modern emendation). 
Authorship of ducorpsii (and its variants) has been variously attributed to 
Hombron and Jacquinot, to Jacquinot and Pucheran, and correctly to Pucheran 
alone; of DuCrops (and its emendations) once to Hombron and Jacquinot, but 
correctly to Bonaparte. 

2. To effect stability, universality and to end the existing confusion, 
a binding decision is sought from the International Commission, by exercise 
of the plenary powers. 

3. The specific name was based on the surname of L.-J. Ducorps, a naval 
officer on the French expedition to Oceania and towards the South Pole (1837- 
1840), the results of which were published in a series of volumes commonly 
called "Voyage au Pole Sud". This cockatoo was first brought to scientific 
attention and pictured in the Atlas of the collections on this expedition, (1845, 
Voy. Pole Sud, Atlas, Ois., pi. 26, fig. 1), where the colour plate gives only the 
French name "Cacatoes de Ducorps"; Hombron and Jacquinot are credited 
with preparing this Atlas. Some eight years later (1853) appeared the text 
volume containing descriptions and scientific names of the mammals and 
birds, subtitled under the authorship of Jacquinot and Pucheran; there the 
cockatoo was described and named ''Cacatua ducorpsii, Homb. et Jacq. 
Kakatoes de Ducorps" (Voy. Pole Sud, Zool. 3, p. 108). On p. 109 Pucheran 
wrote (translation from the French): "The species has been dedicated to 
M. Ducorps, naval administration officer on board the corvette V Astrolabe. 
In procuring birds for us from these distant regions, M. Jacquinot writes me, 
M. Ducorps rendered real services to the expedition and to science". Earlier 
in the volume (p. 14) it is made clear that the zoologist Pucheran was solely 
responsible for the scientific names and descriptions (Jacquinot was a sea 
captain in command of one of the ships of the expedition), but Pucheran 
explains that he deems it appropriate to credit the scientific names to Hombron 
and Jacquinot because the specific names are merely translation into Latin of 
the French names they had previously adopted. Although during the I9th 
century and the ftrst decade of the 20th century the name ducorpsii (occasionally 
emended to ducorpsi) was generally attributed to Jacquinot and Pucheran (very 



Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Pari 4. December 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 241 

rarely to Hombron and Jacquinol), since the adoption of the Regies Inter- 
nationales and the International Code zoologists have almost universally 
credited ducorpsii solely to Pucheran (see discussion Zimmer, Field Mus. Nat. 
Hist., (Zool. Ser.) 16, p. 186, 1926). 

4. The problem arises from the circumstance that during the long interval 
between the appearance of the Alias plate and the publication of Pucheran's 
description and scientific name, Bonaparte in 1850 had published a slightly 
different but misspelled specific name {Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. 30, p. 138), 
which, under current nomenclatural rules has priority and apparent availability. 
In an article reviewing the parrots Bonaparte placed the true cockatoos in 
the genus Plyctolopltus and simply mentioned among the included species: 

"7. P. DuCrops, Homb. et. Jacq., figure dans le Voyage au Pole Sud; 

ayant une petite huppe blanche". 

Bonaparte credited authorship of the scientific name to Hombron and 
Jacquinot, for he intended merely to provide a name equivalent to the French 
name "Cacatoes de Ducorps", appearing on the plate where the cited figure 
occurs. 

Under the Code (as also under the Regies) Bonaparte's 1850 name seems 
available despite the descriptive inadequacy and lack of intention to describe 
a new species. The mention of an unspecified figure in Voyage au Pole Sud 
probably does not constitute an "indication" in the sense of Arts., 16(a)(i), 
12, but the name presumably is made available by the brief mention of one 
characteristic of the cockatoo. 

5. The spelling "DuCrops" in Bonaparte's paper is an obvious transposition 
of the "o" and the "r" in the name "DuCorps" of the plate cited. There is no 
word "crops", nor name "Ducrops", in French or Latin. "Ducorps" is a 
not unusual French surname based on the common French word "corps" 
(meaning body). This is a clear case of either a lapsus calami or a printer's 
error, which, formerly, most zoologists considered themselves entitled to 
emend. We recognize that an obstacle to such "automatic" emendation is 
raised by the very recent amendment of Code Article 32(a)(ii) at the Monaco 
Congress (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 29, p. 186, 29 Dec. 1972), under which the 
"clear evidence of error" must appear "in the original publication itself, without 
recourse to any external source of information". It is arguable that a publication 
essential to the availability of a name as an "indication" is incorporated by 
reference in the original publication, and thus is not an "external source". 
On that theory "DuCrops" might be emended. It reduces possible controversy 
to reject Bonaparte's name altogether and accept the long used and next available 
ducorpsii of Pucheran. 

6. The literature universally recognizes that this parrot was named after 
Ducorps. The usual name in the avicultural publications is Ducorps' Cockatoo 
(English), Kakatoes de Ducorps (French), Kakatu Ducorps (German). Bona- 
parte himself in 1857 used the correct sequence of letters by erecting the genus 
Ducorpsius, with this species indicated as type by tautonymy, sub nom Ducorpsius 
typiis {Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris 44. p. 537). 

7. Although Bonaparte's 1850 paper was well-known and often cited, wc 
have found no subsequent author during the \9lli century who credited him 



242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

with authorship, much less adopted the misspeHing of his paper.* Almost all 
writers used ducorpsii (sometimes varied to ducorpsi), crediting authorship to 
Jacquinot and Pucheran (occasionally to Hombron and Jacquinot). After 
the adoption of the Regies Internationales ducorpsii continued in use, but it 
was recognized that Pucheran should be credited with sole authorship (Zimmer, 
1926, Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Zool. 16, p. 188; Mathews, 1927, Syst. Av. Austral. 
pt. 1, p. 316; Mayr, 1931, Amer. Mus. Novit. no. 504, p. 108; 1944, Ibis (13) 3, 
p. 550). 

8. In 1937 Peters' Check-list of Birds of the World, 3, p. 176, revived 
Bonaparte's name without emendation, listing "Kakatoe ducrops (Bonaparte)". 
Most subsequent authors (not all) have followed Peters in crediting Bonaparte, 
but all have emended the name, in one way or another, to agree with the 
surname Ducorps. Mayr's handbook, Birds of the Southwest Pacific, p. 232, 
1945, credited Bonaparte as author but used Cacatua ducorpsi. This involved 
two emendations: the transposition of letters, and the addition of a genitive 
ending (the latter emendation, while permissible under the Regies Internation- 
ales, ceased to be "justified" under the International Code, as amended in 
1963 at Washington, [deleting Art. 31 and amending Art. 32]). 

Prior to the adoption of the Code, the emended spelling used by Mayr, 
with credit to Bonaparte, ducorpsi, was followed by Virtue, 1947, Emu 46, 
p. 328; Sibley, 1951, Condor 53, p. 87; and Cain and Galbraith, 1956, Ibis 98, 
p. 128. But subsequently Galbraith and Galbraith, 1962, Bull. Brit. Mus. 
{Nat. Hist.), Zool. 9(1), p. 33, reverted to Pucheran's ducorpsii. 

9. Aside from Peters (1937), we have found no author who has favoured 
maintaining the original misspelling of Bonaparte's 1850 paper. An apparent 
exception might seem to be the avicultural booklet by Prestwich (1958), "/ 
name this parrot . . .", identifying persons memorialized in the scientific names 
of parrots as listed in Peters" Check-list of Birds of the World; the booklet 
lists the species as "Kakatoe ducrops^' (consistently with Peters' work), but 
Prestwich made clear that the bird was named after Ducorps. Bates and 
Busenbork (1959), Parrots and related Birds, while essentially adopting Peters' 
nomenclature, emended the name to Kakatoe ducorps. The same emendation 
was made in the most recent and comprehensive monograph, Forshaw's 
Parrots of the World, 1973, 584 pp. (Lansdowne Press, Australia and Doubleday 
Co., New York), where the species is listed (p. 134) as Cacatua ducorps (Bona- 
parte), with the explanation in the preface (p. 14): "Ducorps' Cockatoo was 
certainly named after Ducorps and Bonaparte's ducrops is probably either a 
lapsus calami or a printer's error, so I have amended it to ducorps". 

10. In view of the several variant spellings of the specific name of Ducorps' 
Cockatoo and the various attributed authorships, a decision by the Inter- 
national Commission is needed to ensure stability and universality and to 
eliminate the confusing transposition "ducrops". The simplest way of handling 
the situation is to suppress Bonaparte's (1850) misspelling duCrops, which was 

* Gray's List of Specimens of Birds in the Brilisli Museum, pt. 3, p. 94, 1859, used Ihe mis- 
spelling Cacatua ducropsii, credited to Homb. and Jacq. He corrected the spelling to ducorpsii 
in Hand-list Gen. Sp. Birds. 2, p. 170, 1870. 



Bullet ill of Zoological Noiiieiiclaliire 243 

published without the intent of providing a new name or of describing a new 
species. This would leave as the earliest available name Pucheran's (1853) 
Cacatua ducorpsii, the commonest spelling, which was accompanied by the 
first description of the species, and until Peters" work, was universally regarded 
as the original description. This avoids any need for emendation. Further, 
the variant and less common emended spelling ducorpsi (whatever the author- 
ship) is expressly a homonym under Article 58(10) of the Code, so it causes no 
problem. 

We request the International Commission by exercise of the plenary powers: 

(1) to suppress the specific name ducrops, originally published in the com- 

bination Plycioloplnis DuCrops Bonaparte, C. r. Iiebd. Seaiic. Acad. Sci. 
Paris 30, p. 138, 1850, and to place the names ducrops and DuCrops 
on the Official Index of Specific Names Rejected in Zoology. 

(2) to place the specific name ducorpsii, originally published in the com- 

bination Cacatua ducorpsii by Pucheran in Jacquinot and Pucheran, 
Voyage au Pole Sud, Zool. 3, p. 108, 1853, on the Official List of 
Specific Names accepted in Zoology. 



244 Biillefin of Zoological Nomenclature 

MEGASTERNUM MULSANT, 1844, AND CRYPTOPLEURUM 

MULSANT, 1844 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA: HYDROPHILIDAE): TWO 

CASES OF MISIDENTIFIED TYPE-SPECIES. Z,N.(S.) 2075 

By A. Smetana (Biosysteinatics Research Institute, Canada Department of 
Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada) 

Application is hereby made for official designation of type-species of the 
subject genera to preserve the current long-standing usage. Both cases of 
misidentified type-species are being referred to the Commission in accordance 
with Article 70 (a) of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. 

A. Megasternum Mulsant, 1844 

2. Mulsant (1844 : 187), when erecting the genus Megasternum included 
only one species, namely bolitophagum Erichson, 1837, mentioning also the 
names Derniestes boletophagus Marsh.. 1802 and Cercyon holetophagum ou 
bolitophagum Steph., 1829. The type-species, by monotypy is therefore 
Dermestes boletophagus Marsham, 1802. Subsequent examination of 
Marsham's type of Derniestes boletophagus (see Balfour-Browne, 1939 : 5) 
proved that this species had been misinterpreted by all subsequent authors, and 
that it is actually a specimen of Cercyon trisle (Illiger, 1801), a genus which is 
now referred to a different tribe of the subfamily sphaeridiinae. Mulsant 
erected Megasternum for what was known at that time as Cercyon holetophagum 
following the misidentification by Erichson (1837 : 221) of Marsham's species. 
This is obvious from the morphological features used by Mulsant to characterize 
the genus, and from his reference to Erichson's paper as well. 

3. The concept of Megasternum as originally proposed by Mulsant has 
been continuously used without exception by all subsequent authors since the 
name was erected. Megasternum later became the type-genus of the tribe 
MEGASTERNiNi. For these reasons I believe that the name Megasternum should 
be conserved in its current sense for the stability and uniformity of the nomen- 
clature of the group. The first available name for holetophagum auct., nee 
Marsham, 1802 is Dermestes obscurus Marsham, 1802 and it is proposed here 
as the type-species of Megasternum. 

B. Cryptopleuruni Mulsant, 1844 

4. Mulsant (1844 : 188), when erecting the genus Cryptopleuruni, included 
only one species, namely Sphaeridium atomarium Fabricius, 1775. This species 
therefore automatically becomes the type-species o( Cryptopleuruni by monotypy. 
In fact, Fabricius (1775 : 67) did not describe atomarium as a new species. This 
is obvious from his reference to "Silpha atomaria, nigra, subovata, elytris 
immarginatis, pedibus pallidis. Linn. Syst. Nat. II. 574.35". Silpha atomaria 
Linne, 1767 actually is Stilbus atomarius of the family phalacridae (Hetschko, 
1930 : 35). Fabricius (1775 : 67) gave the following data for his Sphaeridium 
atomarium: "Habitat in stercore Angliae D. Banks". Waterhouse (results 
published by Bedel, 1881 : LXXXI) subsequently examined the Fabricius 

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Part 4. December 1974. 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245 

specimen under the name aiomarium in the Bantcs collection and showed that 
it is actually a specimen of Cercyon imprcssum (Sturm, 1807). Cercyon is now 
placed in a different tribe of the subfamily Sphaeridiinae. Mulsant actually 
erected Cryptopleurum neither for Slilhus atomarius (Linne) nor for Cercyon 
impressum (Slurm), but for Cercyon atomariwu sensu Olivier 1790 (Spliaericliuni), 
Stephens, 1829, and Erichson, 1837 (nee sensu Fabricius, 1775), works to which 
he refers in his description. This is obvious from the morphological features 
used by Mulsant to characterize the genus Cryptopleurum. 

5. The concept of Cryptopleurum as originally proposed by Mulsant has 
been continuously used without exception by all subsequent authors since the 
name was erected. For this reason I believe that the name Cryptopleurum 
should be conserved in its current sense for the stability and uniformity of the 
nomenclature of the group. The first available name for atomarium sensu 
Olivier et al. nee sensu Fabricius, 1775; nee Linne, 1767, is Sphaeridium minutum 
Fabricius, 1775 and it is proposed here as the type-species of Cryptopleurum. 

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby 
asked to take the following actions: 

(1) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus 

Megasternum Mulsant, 1884, and having done so, to designate 
Dermestes obscurus Marsham, 1802, as type-species; 

(b) to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus 

Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1844, and having done so, to designate 
Sphaeridium minutum Fabricius 1775, as type-species; 

(2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic 

Names in Zoology: 

(a) Megasternum Mulsant, 1844 (gender : neuter), type-species, by 

designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Dermestes 
obscurus Marsham, 1802; 

(b) Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1 844 (gender : neuter), type-species, by 

designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Sphaeridium 
minutum Fabricius, 1775; 

(3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific 

Names in Zoology: 

(a) obscurus Marsham 1802, as published in the binomen Dermestes 

obscurus (type-species of Megasternum Mulsant, 1844); 

(b) mirnitum Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Sphaeridium 

minutum (type-species of Cryptopleurum Mulsant, 1 844). 



RErCRENCES 

Balfour-Browne, J. 1939. Contribution to the study of the Palpicornia. II. 

Entomologist's nwn. Mag. 75 : 1-8. 
BtDEL, L. 1881. La synonymie de six especes de Sphaeridium decrites par Fabricius 

en 1775 (Syst. Enloni., p. 66), et dont les types sont designes par lui comme 

appartenant a la collection Banks. Annls Soc. cnt. Fr. (Ser. 6) 1 (Bull. Seanc. 

Soc. em. Fr.): LXXXI. 
Erichson, W. F. 1837-1839. Die Kiifer der Mark Brandenburg I. Berlin, 740 pp. 



246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Fabricius, J. C. 1775. Syslenm Entomologiae . . . . Flensburgi et Lipsiae, 30 -f 

832 pp. 
Hetschko, a. 1930. Phalacridac: In: Junk-Schenkling: Colcopleionim Calaloi;iis 

XV, pars 108. Berlin, 48 pp. 
Illiger, J. C. W. 1801. Magazinfiir Inseclenkiinde. Vol. l,Hefl 1-2. Braunschweig 

8 + 260 pp. 
LiNNE, C. 1767. Syslema Naturae . . . Ed. 12, part 2. Holmiae, p. 533-1327. 
Marsham, T. 1802. Entomologia Brilannica. 1. Coleoptera. London, 31 + 548 pp. 
MuLSANT, E. 1844. Histoire natiirelle des Coleopteres de France. Palpicorncs. 

Paris, 7 r 196 pp., 1 pi. 
Olivier, A. G. 1790. Entomologie, on Histoire Naturelle dcs Insectes, . . . Vol. 2. 

Paris, 485 pp. ,63 pi. 
Stephens, J. F. 1829. Illustrations of British Entomology . . . Mandibulata, Vol. 2. 

London, 200 pp., pi. 10-15 
Sturm, J. 1807. Dcutschlands Fauna ... V. Abtheilung. Die Insecten. Vol. 2. 

Niirnberg, 4 ^ 279 pp., pi. 21-52. 



BiiUelin of Zoological Nomenclature 247 

PSEUDOBOA NIGRA (DUMERIL, BIBRON AND DUMERIL 1854) 

(REPTILIA: SERPENTES): PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER 

THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2077 

By Andrew F. Stimson {British Museum (Natural History), London) 

Bailey (1962 : 167), in a paper dealing with nomenclatural problems of 
several South American snakes, proposed that the trivial name Scytale neuwiedii 
var. nigrum Dumeril, Bibron & Dumerii (1854 ; 1002) be revived for the species 
now known as Pseudoboa nigra (Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril). Bailey's 
proposal was accepted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- 
clature and the above-mentioned specific name placed on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology (Opinion 698, 1964 : 101). 

2. Since 1964 the name Pseudoboa nigra (Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril) 
has appeared three times in primary zoological literature (Bailey, 1967 : 159; 
Pessoa, 1967 : 53; Peters & Orejas Miranda, 1970 : 254) and is the only name 
currently in use for this species. 

3. Scytale neuwiedii var. nigrum is a junior primary homonym of Scytale 
niger Daudin (1803 : 342) a name long considered a synonym of the North 
American Eastern Hognose snake, Heterodon platirhinos Latreille (in Sonnini & 
Latreille 1801 : 32). 

4. The name Scytale (or Scytalus) niger Daudin has only twice been 
used for the black variety of the Eastern Hognose snake (Harlan, 1827 ; 367 
and 1835 : 130) but the specific name continued to be used, either in the com- 
bination Heterodon niger (Troost, 1836 : 186; Holbrook, 1842 : 63; Baird & 
Girard, 1853 : 55; Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1854 : 769; Gunther, 1858 ; 
83) or in the combination Heterodon platirhinos (or platyrhinus) var. niger (Jan. 
1863 : 44; S. Garman, 1883 : 76; H. Garman, 1892 : 303) until near the end 
of the nineteenth century when it was finally relegated to the synonymy of 
Heterodon platirhinos (Cope, 1892 : 643; Hay, 1893 : 102; Boulenger, 1894 : 
154). Edgren (1957) in a study of melanism in the Eastern Hognose snake 
found evidence of geographical variation but concluded that subspecies were 
not recognisable. If at some future date it is decided that a subspecies based 
on the black variety deserves taxonomic recognition it is unlikely that Daudin's 
name would be needed as it is antedated by Coluber cacodaemon Shaw (1802 : 
377). Both names are based on the black variety and the type locality of both 
has been restricted to "vicinity of Charleston" (Schmidt, 1953 : 179). 

5. If the Law of Homonymy were applied the name Pseudoboa nigra 
(Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril) would be replaced by its oldest synonym, Pseudo- 
boa albimaculala Mello (1926 : 129), a name unused as a senior synonym since 
its original description. As the former name has already been placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology it is felt that some confusion would 
arise if it were now rejected. 

6. In the interests of nomenclatural stability the Commission is therefore 
requested: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name niger Daudin, 

Bull. :ool. Nomencl., Vol. 31, Pari 4. December 1974. 



248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclaliire 

1803, as used in the combination Scytale niger, for the purposes of 
the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ; 
(2) to place the specific name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) 
above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology. 

References 
Bailey, J. R. 1962. Lystrophis Cope, 1885 (Reptilia); proposed validation under 

the plenary powers. Bull. zool. Noni. 19 : 164-169 
1967. The synthetic approach to colubrid classification. Herpetologica 

23 : 155-161 
Baird, S. F. & GiRARD, C. 1853. Catalogue of North American reptiles in the 

niiiseuniofthe Smithsonian Institution Part I Serpentes. Washington, xvi + 172pp 
BouLENGER, G. A. 1894. Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum (Natural 

History). London. Vol. 2, xi + 381 pp 
Cope, E. D. 1 892. A critical review of the characters and variations of the snakes 

of North America. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 14 : 589-694 
Daudin, F. M. 1803. Histoire naturelle, generate et particuliere des reptiles. Paris. 

Vol. 5, 365 pp 
DuMERiL, A. M. C, BiBRON, G. & DuMERiL, A. 1854. Erpetologie generate ou 

histoire naturelle complete cles reptiles. Paris. Vol. 7, I-XVL 1-780, I-XII, 

781-1536 pp 
Edgren, R. A. 1957. Melanism in Hog-nosed Snakes. Herpetologica \i : \'i\-\'i5. 
Garman, H. 1892. A Synopsis of the Reptiles and Amphibians of Illinois. Bull. 

III. St. Lab. not. Hist. 3 : 215-385 
Garman, S. 1883. The reptiles and batrachians of North America. Mem. Mus. 

comp. Zool. Harv. 8 (3) : xxxi + 184 pp 
Gunther, a. 1958. Catalogue of the colubrine snakes in the collection of the British 

Museum. London, xvi + 264 pp 
Harlan, R. 1827. Genera of North American Reptilia, and a Synopsis of the 

species. J. Acad. not. Sci. Philad. 5 : 317-372 
Harlan, R. 1835. Medical and Physical Researches or Original Memoirs in Medicine, 

Surgery, Physiology, Geology, Zoology and Comparative Anatomy. Philadelphia. 

xxxix + 653 pp 
Hay, O. P. 1893. The Batrachians and Reptiles of the State of Indiana. Indianapolis. 

204 pp 
HoLBROOK, J. E. 1842. North American Herpetology or a description of the Reptiles 

inhabiting the United States. Philadelphia. Vol. 4, vi -'- 138 pp 
Jan, G. 1863. Elenco sistematico degli ophidi descritti e disegnati per I'lconographia 

Generate. Milan. 143 pp 
Mello, O. de. 1926. Contribugao para conhecimento dos ophidios brasileiros. 

Mems Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 29 : 127-137 
Opinion 698. 1964. Lystrophis Cope, 1885 (Reptilia): validation under the plenary 

powers. Bull. zool. Norn. 21 : 101-103 
Pessoa, S. B. 1967. Notas sobre hemogregarinas de serpentes Brasileiras. 2: 

hemogregarinas de algunas especies de serpentes das familias Colubridae e 

Boidae. Re\ta bras. Biol. 11 : 49-56 
Peters, J. A. & Orejas Miranda, B. R. 1970. Catalogue of the Neotropical 

Squamata. Part I. Snakes. Bull U.S. natn. Mus. 297 1 : viii -i- 347 pp 
Schmidt, K. P. 1953. A Check List of North American Amphibians and Reptiles. 

6th edition. Chicago, viii + 280 pp 
Shaw, G. 1802. General Zoology Vol. 3 Amphibia. London. 615 pp 
SoNNiNi, C. S. & Latreille, p. a. 1801. Histoire Naturelle des Reptiles. (Chez 

Deterville) Paris. Vol. 4, 410 pp 
Troost, G. 1836. On a new genus of Serpents and two new species of the genus 

Heterodon, inhabiting Tennessee. .Ann. Lyceum nat. Hist. 3 : 174-190 



Plate 2 



Bull zool. NoinencL, Vol. 31 




Bulletin of Zoological Nomcuclalure 249 

PLATYRHACUS KOCH, 1847 (DIPLOPODA): PETITION FOR THE 

DESIGNATION BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF A 

TYPE-SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE. 

Z.N.(S.) 2078 

By Richard L. Hoffman (Radford College, Radford, Virginia 24141, U.S.A.}^ 

The milliped family platyrhacidae, as traditionally and currently under- 
stood, consists of a large number of Neotropical and Indoaustralian taxa for 
which nearly 250 specific and 43 generic names have been proposed. In the 
regions where they occur, platyrhacids are often the most conspicuous members 
of the order Polydesmida, and several species in Sumatra and Borneo are the 
largest known members of the order, with body lengths in excess of 125 mm. 

2. The name Platyrhacus was proposed in 1847 by C. L. Koch (System der 
Myriapoden, fasc. 58, p. 131) to include three species, Polydesmus scaber Perty, 
1833 (Delectus Animalium articulatorum . . . Brasiliam . . .: 210) and two 
new taxa, Platyrhacus rufipes Koch and P. fusciis Koch. No indication of 
type species was made by Koch either in this paper or in his iconography 
Die Myriapoden (1863) in which all three species are entered with longer des- 
criptions and illustrations of the animals themselves. Apparently the first 
unequivocal type selection was made in 1896 (Aiinali. Mus. Civ. Stor. nat. 
Giaconw Doria 36 : 191) by F. Silvestri, who designated Polydesnnis scaber 
"Koch" as type. As pointed out by Jeekel (1971, Monog. Nederl. Ent. Ver. 
5 ; 280), there is no indication that Silvestri considered scaber of Koch and 
scaber of Perty as being different species, although in the original reference 
Koch clearly referred to the 1833 paper by Perty. There is thus no reason to 
doubt that Polydesmus scaber Perty is in fact the valid type species oi Platyrhacus 
by subsequent designation. 

3. Difficulty is introduced, however, by a consideration of the zoological 
identities reflected by the names scaber as used by Perty and by Koch. From 
the description and reasonably accurate habitus illustration published by 
Perty (op. cit., p. 210, p. 40, fig. 9) as well as the locality (". . . mountains of the 
province of Minas [Gerais, Brasil]"), it is easy to establish that the name scaber 
was in fact based upon a species of the family chelodesmidae, in all probability 
of the genus Storthotropis Attems. Thus, adoption of the technically valid 
type species would result in the transfer of the generic and family names 
Platyrhacus and platyrhacidae to a totally different family of polydesmoids 
and create considerable problems of nomenclatural readjustment. 

' The author wishes to express his appreciation for valuable ideas and advice to Drs. C. W. 
Sahrosky and C. A. W. Jeekel: for access to the British Museum collection, to Mr. K. H. 
Hyatt. 

Bull. zool. Nomeiwl.. Vol. 31 Part 4. December 1974. 

FIGURE CAPTION— Both drawings 30 life size 

Plalyrlmciis fiiscus Koch, gonopods of specimen (B.M. 1913.7.25.2182) considered to he 

probably the original holotype. Fig. 1, left gonopod, mesal aspect. Fig. 2, left gonopod, 

lateral aspect, proximal half of coxa not shown. 



250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

4. The species accounted under the name scaber by Koch, however, 
is unquestionably referable to the family platyrhacidae as generally under- 
stood. This is immediately evident from both his verbal descriptions of 1847 
and 1863, as well as the illustration in the second reference (pi. XX, fig. 41). 
Koch stated (1863 : 48) that his specimen came from "Brasilien" without 
implying that it was part of Perty's material as he did specifically claim for 
certain other species (e.g., Rbacophorus conspersus, with the statement ". . . 
dasselbe Exemplar, \o:\ welchem Dr. Perty seine Beschreibung mit Abbildung 
entnommen hat . . ."). 

5. It seems manifest that although Koch misidentified his "'scaber" even 
at the family level, his citation of Perty's description associates the name 
scaber with a chelodesmoid milliped, and that if Silvestri's type designation of 
1896 be strictly followed, Platyrhacus must be applied to a genus of the chelo- 
DESMIDAE. The family heretofore called platyrhacidae will thus be deprived 
of its type genus and so vvili require a new name to be formed by the elevation 
of one of the three existing subfamily names (Phyodesmini, Psaphodesmini, 
and Taphodesmini, Cook, 1896). 

6. The preceding changes can be avoided by the arbitrary rejection of 
Silvestri's type designation and the fiat substitution of a genuine platyrhacid 
taxon which was one of the originally included species, namely Platyrhacus 
fuscus Koch, 1847. This species was well-described and illustrated in Koch's 
1863 book, and the specimen was stated to have come from Java. Externally 

fuscus appears to be very similar to, if not identical with, Platyrhacus flavisternis 
Pocock, a common Javan species, and, moreover, there exists at the present 
an actual specimen which is in all probability the original type o[ fuscus. It is 
thereby possible to associate the generic name with a definite species. 

7. The collection of the British Museum (Natural History) contains under 
register number 1913.7.25.2182 an adult male specimen identified as making 
up part of the L. Koch collection of (chiefly) arachnids purchased by the 
Museum in 1913. Aside from the parchment label added by the Museum staff, 
the bottle contains a very old and faded square paper label with ornate blue 
edging and some barely legible words in a handwriting which I do not recognize. 
The top line states "Platyrhacus fuscus Koch" and at the bottom is the word 
"Java", in between are several words which I could not decipher. Since a 
part of the arachnid-myriapod material of the elder Koch was inherited by his 
son Ludwig, 1 think the probability is very high that the specimen in question 
is in fact the original type of fuscus. Aside from being largely decolorized by 
long preservation, the specimen agrees well in size and general structure with 
Koch's 1863 figure 41. The gonopods are of the form as shown in the accom- 
panying figures, and the general pattern is one shared by a considerable number 
of species ranging from Burma and Malaya south to Java. 

8. In summary, favourable response to this petition to the International 
Commission would have the effect of: 

(a) continuing the association of the name Platyrhacus with a genus of 
millipeds belonging to a family which through 130 years of usage 
has been called platyrhacidae by all students of the Diplopoda, and 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 251 

(b) preventing the transfer of the type genus of the aforesaid family into a 
quite different family of polydesmoids, with the resultant provision 
of a new name for the erstwhile platyrhacidae. 

9. Accordingly the Commission is requested : 

(1) under its Plenary Powers, to set aside all designation of type species 

for the nominal genus Platyrbacus Koch, made prior to the Ruling now 
requested, and having done so, to designate Platyrbacus fuscus Koch, 
1847 to be the type species of that genus; 

(2) to place the generic name Platyrbacus Koch, 1847 (gender: masculine), 

with type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, Platyr- 
hacus fuscus Koch, 1847, on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology ; 

(3) to place the specific name /«iCM5 Koch, 1847, as published in the binomen 

Platyrbacus fuscus (type-species oi Platyrbacus Koch, 1847) on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; 

(4) to place the family name platyrhacidae Pocock, 1895, on the Official 

List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 



252 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 



INDEX TO AUTHORS 







Page 




Page 


Abele, L. G 




49 


Lemche, H. ... 5. 8. 10, 


110,171,196 


Alexander, C. P. ... 




5 


Loof, P. A. A. 
Lucas, J. S 


110 
142 


Brinck, P 




6 






Burks, B. D. 
Boylan, P J 

Cernohorsky, W. 0. 


116, 156 


116 

135 

212 


McAlpine, D. K. ... 

McCoy, C. J. 
(pro Nomenclature 
A.S.LH.) 


59 

Committee, 
203 


Corbet, G. B. 




29 


Melville, R. V. 105,111, 
Miller, D. R. 


115,171,172 
146 


De Lotto, G. 




154 


Miller, L. D. 


104 


Dugdale, J. S. 




140 


Mound, L. A. 
Mroczkowski, M. ... 


228 
4 


Eastop, V. F. 




164 






Eisenmann, E. 


10, 114 


240 


Napier, P.H. 


29 


Fleming, C. A. 




140 






Forshaw, J. M. 




240 


Obut, A. M 


104 


Gans, C 




201 


Oekentorp, K. 


112 


Green, M. A. 
Greenwood, P. H. ... 




135 
107 


Palmer, J. M. 
Ponder, R. W. 


228 
54 


Hemmingsen, A. M. 




5 






Hendrickson, J. A., Jr. 
Higgins, L. G. 

Hill, J. E 

Hoffman, R. L. 




173 

204 

29 

249 


Rehder, H. A. 

Riley, N.D 

Roback, S. S. 


11 
204 

173 


Holthuis, L. B. 
Hutson, A. M. 


177 


178 

7 


Sabrosky, C. W. ... 
Silfverberg, H. 


159, 206 
216 


Ingles, J. M 




29 


Smetana, A 

Steyskal, G. C. 


244 
... 59, 113 


Jacques, R. L., Jr. ... 




144 


Stimson, A. F. 
Stone, A. R 


223, 247 
225 


Kafanov, A. I. 




238 


Strelzov, V 


9 


Kashin, G. N. 


209 


215 


Subba Rao, B. R. ... 


221 


Kenk, R 




62 


Sudilovskaia, A M. 


209 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 



253 







Page 


Page 


Thompson, F. 
Tjeder, B. .. 
Tortonese, E. 


G. ... 


170 

7 
... 27,172 


Vickery, V. R 218 

Voss, G. L. 51 


Trewavas, E. 




107 


Watson, G. E 8 


Uschakov, P. 




9 


Whailey, P. E. S 173 

White, R. E. ... 144,200 


van Bree, P. J 


. H. ... 


44 


Whitehead, P. J. P 107 


Vane-Wright, 


R. I.... 


7 


Wood, S. L. 171, 230, 232, 234, 236 



254 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 



LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME 

Opinion Page 

1014 (OArm'aMenke, 1830) *. ... 13 

1015 (5o/en/«j Lepeletier & Brulle, 1834) 16 

\0\6 (Cribrilina punctata (HassaW, IM\)) 19 

1017 (7>>f/;om Foerster, 1868) 22 

1018 (Po/am5fl Walker, 1875) 24 

1019 (SvMoco7"«Haliday, 1838) 117 

1020 (Pleuroacanthiles Canavari, \iS3) 121 

1021 (C///»«fln(/fa/M.s Reinhardt, 1837) 123 

1022 (Ctenodonta elongate Salter, IS73) 125 

1023 (CASSIDAE (Mollusca) & CASSiDiNAE (Insecta)) 127 

1024 (£/7///!e.v(.s Cope, 1866) 130 

1025 {Salamandra tigrina Green, l»25) 133 

1026 (C/;nTO;ja/K/Hgo;/caKlapalek, 1899) 182 

1021 (Sminthurinus homer, 1901) 184 

1028 (ffl/co e.\-;7/i Temminck, 1830) 186 

1029 (/?(j;;aftoo;).f Linnaeus, 1758) 188 

1030 (Cv//W/-e//aSwainson, 1840) 190 

1031 (£oi/o»7/as e.v/>n/M5 Jordan & Gilbert, 1925) 192 

1032 (i/emo/a Uvarov, 1940) 194 

Direction 

106 (Correction of author ofsaportae, Papilio. Official Index No. 969) 179 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
INDEX TO KEY NAMES 



ACHiiDAE Fleming, 1821 

aclaeon, Papilio, Fabricius, 1775 
acteon, Papilio, von Rottemburg, 1775 
aciitcatiis, Cliiiiis, Reichardt, 1837 ... 

Aglaja Renier, \S01 

albopiiiictala, Hyla, Spix, 1824 

ALCADAE Anon., 1820 

ALCEDAE Brookes, 1 828 

ALCEiDAE Brookes, 1828 

ALCiDAE Anon., 1820 

anibigiiiis. Crypt us, Tschek, 1870 
A mphidesma Lamarck, 1818... 

Anodiiis Motschulsky, 1860 

Aptinotltrips Haliday, 1836 
uspersa, hialia. Alder & Hancock, 1845 
aiistralis, Giraffa cainelopardalis, Rhoads, 1896 
autographus, Bostrichiis, Ratzeburg, 1837 ... 



255 



Page 

59 
104 
104 
123 
196 
188 
215 
215 
215 
215 

22 
111 
232 
228 

13 
171 
232 



benoit, Pliaropteryx, Ruppell, 1852 

bifenestra, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955 
bifeiiesira, Heterodera, Kir'yanova & Krall, 1971 
biformis. Ammonites, i. de C. Sowerby, 1831 
binotatus, Hydropltorus, Fallen, 1823 
bituberciilatum, Leipartlirum, Wollaston, 1854 

boons, Rana, Linnaeus, 1758 

boreale, Cardium, Broderip & Sowerby, 1829 

biirsaria. Aphis, Linnaeus, 1758 

Byrsocrypta HaWAay, 1838 ... 



172 
225 
225 
121 
173 
234 
188 
238 
117 
117 



californiense, Clinocardium, Deshayes, 1839 
cambriensis, Ctenodonta, Hicks, 1873 

Cmgoa Vogel &Schultz, 1970 

Cassida Linnaeus, 1758 

CASsiDAE Latreille, 1825 

CASsiDiNAE Stephens, 1831 

CuM/'i Scopoli, 1777 ... 

rawrfato, Wo//a, 0rsted, 1 844 

Ccrithinm Bruguicre, [1789] ... 

Chanda Hamilton Buchanan, 1822 

coccus, Dactylopius, Costa, 1835 
coleoptratus, Thysaims, Kerrich, 1953 

coloratus, Echis, Giinther, 1878 

Conuispira Schultze, 1854 



238 
125 

13 
127 
127 
127 
127 

13 
116 
107 
146 
221 
223 

58 



256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Page 

comma, Phagocata, Shishkov, 1903 62 

cornutiim, Biicciniim, Linnaeus, 1758 ... ... ... ... ... ... 127 

crassipes, Plerodaclylus, Meyer, IS57 114 

Cnftn/mn Gray, 1848 91 

Owp/(a/u.y Erichson, 1836 171 

cryptooecium, Cribrilina, Norman, 1903 19 

Cn'prop/e»r«m Mulsant, 1 844 244 

cuticulare, Orchelimiim, Audinet-Serville, 1838 218 

Or/o^^ra Wood, 1842 54 

0'//f/i«aLoven, 1846 190 

cylindracea. Bulla, Pennant, 1777 190 

07iWrp//aSwainson, 1840: 326 190 

0'//Wfp//aSwainson, 1840: 311 190 

C>//Wfe//a Swainson, 1 840 (a «om. n«^.) 190 

Cy/fnc Gray, 1834 212 

CYLLENiNAE Bellardi, 1882 212 

CYMATiiDAE Iredale, 1913 105 

DACTYLOPiiDAE Signoret, 1875 146 

/)afr.v/op("j Costa, 1835 146 

Z)amtoi<? Walker, 1859 173 

delfini, Galaxias, Philippi, 1895 8 

depicia, Aglaja, Renier, 1807 196 

D/ap/o^rea Costa, 1828 146 

Dicerorhinus Gloger, 1841 135 

£l(V/ecmore«« Brookes, 1828 135 

discolor, Cuculus, Hermann, 1783 209 

/)(7;'/{';ictos Filipjev, 1936 110 

OoHof///o De Blainville, 1819 Ill 

/JO'Ofoe'" Eichhoff, 1864 232 

r/Hforp™, CacafHo, Pucheron, 1853 240 

ducrops, Plyctoloplms,Qona.paxle, MSO 240 

clegaiis, Idalia, Leuckart, 1828 13 

elongata, Ctenodonta, Salter, 1873 125 

elongalum, Leplosomatum,'&a%\.\2Ln, \i()5 ... ... ... ... 210 

£p/r/;eA(i Cope, 1866 130 

c.v/fc, Fa/co, Temminck, 1830 186 

e.x7«»'».?, foirom/fl.?, Jordan & Gilbert, 1925 192 

flabelUforme, Dictyonema, (Eichwald, 1840) 104 

/o//Vjff/«, OrWi, Philippi, 1844 58 

/TO(?«a/u.s, &/».?, Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1854 223 

fuscus,Platyrhaciis,Koc\\,\Ml 249 



Bullet ill of Zoological Nomenclature 



257 



gigas, Leucospis, Fabricius, 1 793 
gigUotosi, Heniola, Carbonell, 1971... 
giraulli, Signiphora, Crawford, 1913 
glabeirimum, Xiphidiiim, Burmeisler, 1838. 



Page 

116 
194 
221 
218 



Haniitlonia Swainson, 1839 

Heniola Uvarov, 1 940 

hiingarica, Chrysopa, Klapalek, 1899 

Hydroptioius F&Wen, \S23 

Hypacanliis Rafinesque, 1810 



107 
194 
182 

173 

27 



Idalla 0rsle<i, 1844 

inlenuptiis, Solenius, Lepeletier & Brulle, 1834 



13 
16 



jaculus, Hydrophorus, Fallen, 1823 
Kerrichiella Rosanov, 1965 ... 



173 
221 



laeve, Hynienosoiiw, Targioni Tozzetti, 1877 
lalodaclytus, Syrrhophus, Taylor, 1940 
Leiparlhrum Wollaston, 1854 
Lep^/HofowaStal, 1854 
leplorhyncha, Diomedea, Coues, 1866 
I.eptosoma Bonaparte, 1849 ... 
LEPTOSOMATiDAE Filipjev, 1916 
LEPTOSOMATiNAE O.Des Murs, 1860 
LEPTOSOMATiNi Filipjev, 1916 
Leplosomatum Bastlan, 1865... 

LEPTOSOMIDAE Blyth, 1838 

Lep/oyomus Vieillot, 1816 

i/c/»a Cuvier, 1817 

limonii, Helerodera, Cooper, 1955 ... 

/.(7/of ?/•(.! Reitter, 1912 

Z.i/7a/7/(rMm Wollaston, 1864 
lithographica, Archaeopteryx, Meyer, 1861 
longispinus, Dactyhpius, Targioni-Tozzetti, 1867 
LHcmaBruguiere, 1797 
luslrica, Paliidiita, Say, 1821 ... 



maculaliis, Cliinis, Fries, 1838 
marnockii, Syrrhophus, Cope, 1878 ... 
maxima, Rana, Laurenti, 1768 
Megasterniim Mulsant, 1844... 
menapiensis, Ctenodonia, Hicks, 1873 



142 
130 
234 
144 
8 
209 
209 
209 
209 
209 
209 
209 

27 
225 
200 
234 
114 
146 

10 
170 

123 
130 
188 
244 

152 



258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Page 

methwoldeiisis, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955 225 

mexicamis. Coccus, Lamarck, 1801 154 

mexicanus, Gyrinus,S\\a.\N,\l?i9 133 

mildei, Amphisbaena, Peters, 1878 201 

minutum, Sphaeridiiim. Fabricius, 1775 244 

molucceiisis, Comis, Dillwyn, 1817 156 

nwliicccnsis. Conns, Kiister, 1838 156 

monographus, Bostiichiis, Fabricius, 1792 230 

nionlenigiina, Planaria, Miazs)s., \90^ ... ... ... ... 62 

multiplex, Cyclogyra, Wood, 1842 58 

NASSARiiDAE Iredale, 1916 212 

nebulosa, Cassida, Linnaeus, 1758 127 

m^^cr, So''n/e, Daudin, 1803 247 

niger, Smynthnrinus, Lubbock, 1868 184 

niloticns, Heterotis, Ehrenberg 207 

oiiCHra, O'carfa n»^»/ato van, Hudson, 1891 140 

obscurus, Dermestcs, Marsham, 1802 244 

OAemaMenke, 1830 13 

oleracea-ecoM'p, Tiputa 5 

0/o/i///o^a5(fr Motschulsky, 1866 236 

opalescens, Loligo, Berry, 1911 53 

owcnii, Cyllene, Gray, 1834 212 

Oa.)5Mh»ho Filipjev, 1921 115 

Palaeofavosites Tv,er\ho{e\, \914 112 

Pa«Oken, 1816 29 

Pa/j/tonOken, 1816 29 

Pornomi Grube, 1873 9 

/'aTOn//(« Rafinesque, 1815 204 

paytensis, Antlnis, Lesson, 1837 172 

PEMPHiGiNi Koch, 1837 117 

Pemphigus H3.n'\g, ^^9 117 

pernettcnsis, Detplnnus,deB\2i\n\\\\e, \i\l 44 

pernettyi, Delplunus, Desmarest, 1820 44 

/■///ocommi Chapuis, 1869 ... ... ... ... ... ■■. ... ... 236 

PItloeolrogus Motschulsky, 1863 230 

PLATVCHOEROPiDAE Lydekker, 1 887 177 

P/aO''/'"'-'" Koch, 1847 249 

PLATYRHACIDAE PocOCk, 1895 249 

PLATYSTOMATiDAE Schiner, 1862 59, 177 

i'/emoflcn/if/!//<?i Canavari, 1883 121 

Po/amifl Walker, 1875 24 

polygonii, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955 225 

Po/y^ramma Chevrolat, 1 837 144 



Bulletin oj Zoological Nomenclature 



259 



polyxena, Papilio, Denis & Schiffermueller, 1775 

psEUDOcocciDAE Cockerell, 1905 ... 

Pscuclococciis Westwood, 1 840 

pimctata, Lepralia, Hassall, 1841 

pyii, Apliis, Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841 

pyri, Apliis, Kittel, 1827 

pyri, Apliis, Vallot, 1802 

qiiadricornis, Doris, Montagu, 1815... 
qiiatermis, Liipenis, Fairmaire, 1880 

robiistiis, Eiidyptes, Oliver, 1953 
rotunda, Clenodoitta, Hicks, 1873 
rotunda, Ctenodonta, Salter, 1873 
rufa, Tlirips, Gmelin, 1790 ... 
rufiventris, Accipiter, Smith, 1830 
riifus, Thrips (Aptinothrips), Haliday, 1836 



saportae, Papilio, Geyer in Hiibner & Geyei [1828-1832] 

sativus. Coccus, Lancry, 1791 

Schistodera Cobb, 1920 

sclateri, Eiidyptes, Buller, 1888 

silvestris. Coccus, Lancry, 1791 

Sminthurinus Borner, 1901 ... 

Smynthurella Houlbert, 1924 

Solenius Lepeletier & Brulle, 1834 

stearnsii, Loligo, Hemphill, 1892 

Striglina Gvitnie, \Z11 

Syrrhophus Cope, 1878 

taeniatus, Calomicrus, Wollaston, 1867 

Tetraneura Hartig, 1841 

THRAUPIDAE Wctmorc & Miller, 1926 
thujae, Hylesinus, Perris, 1855 
tigrina, Salamandra, Green, 1825 
titillator. Ichneumon, Linnaeus, 1758 
trapezium, Sesarma, Dana, 1852 
Iricolorata, Aglaj'a, Renier, 1807 

Trychosis Foerster, 1 868 

r»m/a Jousseaume, 1881 

iilmi. Aphis, Linnaeus, 1758 

urticae, Heterodera, Cooper, 1955 . 
urticae, Heterodera, Mathews, 1970 
urticae, Heterodera, Pogosyan, 1962 



Page 

204 
146 
146 
19 
164 
164 
164 

13 
216 

64 
125 
125 
228 
186 
229 

179 

154 

115 

64 

154 

184 

184 

16 

51 

173 

130 

216 

117 

171 

236 

133 

22 

49 

196 

22 

11 

117 

225 
225 
225 



260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Page 

viatica, Spliex, Linnaeus, 1758 159 

riilgare, Oiclielimum, Harris, 1841 218 

Xyleborus Eichhoff, ISM 230 

Zeo'n/A/a Ochsenheimer, 1816 204 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 



261 



NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN 
DECISIONS PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 31 



Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 

Cassida Linnaeus, 1758 
Cassis Scopoli, 1 777 
Cribrilina Gray, 1841 
Cylichna Loven, 1 846 
Heniola Uvarov, 1940 
Okenia Menke, 1830 



Pcmpliigiis Hartig, 1 839 
Smintliuriniis Borner, 1901 
Soleniiis Lepeletier & Brulle, 1834 
Syrrlwpluis Cope, 1 878 
Tetranettra Hartig, 1841 
Trychosis Foerster, 1868 



Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 

albopiinclala, Hyla, Spix, 1824 
ambigiius, Cryplus, Tschek, 1870 
aspersa, Idalia, Alder & Hancock, 1854 
boons, Rana, Linnaeus, 1758 
biirsaria, Apliis, Linnaeus, 1758 
cambriensis, Clenodonta, Hicks, 1873 
cornutum, Biiccinum, Linnaeus, 1758 
cryplooecium, Cribrilina, Norman, 1903 
cylindracea. Bulla, Pennant, 1777 
elegans, Idalia, Leuckart, 1828 
eximiiis, Eoslomias, Jordan & Gilbert, 1925 
gigliotosi, Heniola, Carbonell, 1971 
hungarica, Chrysopa, Klapalek, 1899 
interrupliis, Solenius, Lepeletier & Brulle, 1834 
maculatiis, Cliniis, Fries, 1838 
marnockii, Syrrhophns, Cope, 1878 
menapiensis, Clenodonta, Hicks, 1873 
nebulosa, Cassida, Linnaeus, 1758 
niger, Smyntlmrinus, Lubbock, 1868 
punctata, Lepralia, Hassall, 1841 
rufiventris, Accipiter, Smith, 1830 
litillator. Ichneumon, Linnaeus, 1758 
ulmi. Aphis, Linnaeus, 1758 

Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology 

CASsiDAE Latreille, 1825 pemphigini Koch, 1837 

CASsiDiNAE Stephens, 1831 

Ofiicial Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology 



Brysotrypta, West wood 1840 
Byrsocrypta Haliday, 1838 
Cylindrella Swuinson, 1840: 311 
Cylindrelta Swainson, 1840 (a noni.nud.) 



Cylindrella Swainson, 1840: 326 
Epirhexis Cope, 1 866 
Polanisa Walker, 1875 
Smynthurella Houlbert, 1924 



262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 

aculeatus, Clinus, Reinhardt, 1837 maxima, Raita, Laurenti, 1768 

caudala, Idalla, 0rsted, 1844 qiiaclricomis, Doris, Montagu, 1815 

elongata, Ctcnodonta, Salter, 1873 rotunda, Ctenodonta, Hicks, 1873 

exilis, Faico, Temminck, 1830 rotunda, Ctenodonta, Salter, 1873 



Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology 
None in this volume 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 263 



CORRIGENDA 

vol. 31 : 

page 9. Line 18, from bottom: "Paraoiiis Grube, 1872" should read "Paraonis 

Grube, 1873"; same correction for line 11 from bottom of page, 
page 24. Line 14, Wiebes application was published in Bull. 24: 319-320 not 

vol. 23. 
page 62. Line 3. Z.N.(S.) Number to be Z.N.(S.) 2079. 

page 146. Line 4. Z.N.(S.) Number to be Z.N.(S.) 2091. 

vol. 30: 

pages 80-81. Pinguiniis Bonnaterre, 1791 should read Pinguimts Bonnaterre, 1790. 

vol. 29: 

page 209. Line 1, and throughout the paper for "Paraonis Grube, 1872" read 
"Paraonis Grube, 1873" 



264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 

PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL 
PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED 

Part No. Contents of Part Date of publication 

(pages) 

1 1-64 31st July 1974 

2 65-102 14th August 1974 

3 103-166 20th September 1974 

4 167-265 31st December 1974 



Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 265 



INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER 



The present volume should be bound up as follows: T.P. I-IX, 1-265 



Note: The wrappers (covers) of the four parts should be bound in at the end of the 
volume. 



INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 

A. The Members of the Trust 

Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. (Chairman) 
Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. 

(Secretary and Managing Director) 
The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Boyd of Merton, P.C., C.H. 
Mon. J. Forest 
Dr. N. E. Hickin 
Dr. L. B. Holthuis 
Prof. Dr. O. Kraus 
Mr. R. V. Melville 
Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. 
Dr. N. R. Stoll 
Mr. C. W. Wright, C.B. 
Dr. G. F. de Witte 

B. The Officers of the Trust 

Mrs. Margaret Green, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant) 

C. The Honorary Life President 

The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. 

CONTENTS 

(continued from front wrapper) 

Directions Page 

Direction 106 (Correction of author of saportae, Papilio on OfiHcial Index Entry made 

under Opinion 969) 179 

Opinions 

Opinion 1026 fCAr)'jo/7a Awn^ac/ca Klapaiek, 1899) 



Opinion 1027 (Smiiithurinus Borner, 1901) 

Opinion 1028 (Ffl/fo e.v/foTemmincl<, 1830) 

Opinion 1029 (Rana boons Linnaeus, 1758) 

Opinion 1030 (0'//n(/rW/aSwainson, 1840) 

Opinion 1031 (Eoslomias eximiiis Jordan & Gilbert, 1925) 
Opinion 1032 (//ra/o/a Uvarov, 1940) 



182 
184 
186 
188 
190 
192 
194 



New and Revived cases 

Revised proposals on the validation of Aglaja Renier, 1807, Aglaja depicta Renier, 
1807 and A. tricolorala Renier, 1807 (Mollusca, Opisthobranchia); neotype 
selection for .4. rr/co/oram (H. Lemche) 196 

Proposed amendment to Opinion 908: correction of the type-species of Lilioceris 

Reitter, 1912 (R. E. Wiiite) 200 

,4m/>/;w6aeHfl mjVt/e; Peters, 1878 (Reptilia): holotype rediscovered (C. Cans) 201 

Parnalius Rafinesque, 1815 (Insecta, Rhopalocera) : request for suppression (N. D. 

Riley and L. G. Higgins) 204 

Article 50 and questions of authorship. (C. W. Sabrosl<y) 206 

LEPTOSOMATIDAE in Avcs and Nematode : request to place leptosomidae BIyth, 1838 
and LEPTOSOMATIDAE Filipjev, 1916 on the Official List of Family-Group Names in 
Zoology (A. M. Sudilovslcaia and G. N. Kashin) 209 

Amendments to an application on nassariidae Iredaie, 1916 (Gastropoda) proposed 

conservation under the plenary powers. (W. O. Cernohorsky) 212 

ALcroAE (ex alcadae) Anon., 1820 (Aves) and alceidae (ex alcedae) Brookes, 1828 
(Mammalia): request for the addition to the Official List of Family-Group Names 
in Zoology (G. N. Kashin) 215 

Calomicrus laem'alus Wollaston, 1867 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed suppression 

under the plenary powers. (H. Silfverberg) 216 

Proposed suppression of Xiphidium glaberrimum Burmeister, 1838, and Orchelimum 
cuticulare Audinet-Serville, 1838 and proposed addition of Orchelimum vulgare 
Harris, 1841, to the Official List (Insecta, Grylloptera) 218 



CONTENTS 
[continued from inside back wrapper) Page 

Request for the suppression of Signiphora girauUi Crawford, 1913 (Insecta, Hymen- 

optera) as type-species of /femV/HW/o Rosanov, 1965. (B. R. Subba Rao) ... 221 
Echis coloratus Gunther, 1878 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed validation under the 

plenary powers (A. F. Stimson) 223 

Application for a ruling on the availability of five specific names proposed as new for the 

genus Heterodera A. Schmidt, 1871 (Nematoda) in "A preliminary key to British 

species of Heterodera for use in soil examination" by B. A. Cooper, 1955 (A. R. 

Stone) 225 

Thrips rufa Gmelin, 1790 (Insecta, Thysanoptera, thripidae) proposed suppression 

under the plenary powers so as to validate T. rufa Haliday, 1836 (L. A. Mound & 

J. M. Palmer) 228 

Proposed conservation under the plenary powers of the name Xyleborus Eichhoflf, 

1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera, scolytidae) (S. L. Wood) 230 

Proposed conservation under the plenary powers of the name Dryocoetes Eichhoff, 

1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera, scolytidae) (S. L. Wood) 232 

Proposed conservation under the plenary powers of the name Liparlhrum Wollaston, 

1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera, scoLYTroAE) (S. L. Wood) 234 

Proposed conservation under the plenary powers of the name Phloesiiius Chapuis, 1869 

(Insecta, Coleoptera, scolytidae) (S. L. Wood) 236 

Clinocardium californiense (Deshayes, 1839) (Mollusca: Cardiidae) proposed validation 

under the plenary powers (A. I. Kafanov) 238 

Plyctolophus dticrops Bonaparte, 1850 (Aves): proposed suppression under the plenary 

powers and validation of Cacalua ducorpsii Pucheron, 1853 (E. Eisenmarm) ... 240 
Megasterimm Mulsant, 1844 and Cryptopleuriim Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, Coleoptera, 

HYDROPHILIDAE): two cases of misidentified type-species. (A. Smetana) 244 

Pseudoboa nigra (Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1854) (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed 

validation under the plenary powers (A. F. Stimson) 247 

Platyrhacus Koch, 1847 (Diplopoda): petition for the designation by the International 

Commission of a type-species in harmony with accustomed use (R. L. Hoffman) . . . 249 

Comments 

Comments on the proposed suppression ofPaliidina lustrica Say, 1821 (F. G. Thompson) 170 
Proposed use of the plenary powers to designated a type-species for Cryphalus Erichson, 

1836(Insecta, Coleoptera) (S. L.Wood) 171 

Withdrawal of Z.N.(S.) 1942: the proposed suppression of Giraffa camelopardalis 

m«rra/« Rhoads, 1896 (R. V. Melville) 171 

Comments on the proposal to suppress Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878 (Reptilia, 

Amphisbaenia) (Nomenclature Committee, American Society of Ichthyologists 

and Herpetologists) 203 

THRAUPiDAE (Aves): comment on proposals (H. Lemche) 171 

Comment on the proposal to suppress the specific name paytensis Lesson, 1837 (Aves) 

(R.V.Melville) 172 

Change in the proposals on the proposed suppression of Pharopteryx benoil Riippell, 

1852 (Pisces) (E. Tortonese) 172 

Comments and alternative proposal on the conservation of Striglina Guenee, 1877 

(P. E. S. Whalley) 173 

Comments on and alternative proposal for the proposal (Z.N.(S.) 2036) to conserve 

Hydrophoriis Fallen, and to suppress the designation by Macquart of Hydrophorus 

yacu/iu Fallen as type-species (J. A. Hendrickson, Jr. & S. S. Roback) 173 

Comment on the proposals concerning the suppression of the family-group name 

PLATYCHOEROPIDAE. (L. B. Holthuis) 177 

Comment on the proposals concerning the proposed conservation of the family-group 

name PLATYSTOMATIDAE Schiner, 1 862 (L. B. Holthuis) 177 

Comment on "Gen.n.,sp.n." After 1930, availability of the generic name (L. B. 

Holthuis) 178 



(O 1974. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 
Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at The George Press, Kettering Northamptonshire